United Airlines parent UAL Corp. filed its Disclosure Statement yesterday in its longstanding chapter 11 case in Chicago and it was not a pretty sight. United was the second major airline to seek bankruptcy court protection during the current downturn in the industry that started in 2001. US Airways Group Inc. is about to emerge from a chapter 22 bankruptcy (two chapter 11 cases in a three year period) and merge with America West Holdings Corp. Delta Air Lines and Northwest Airlines both are currently on the brink of chapter 11. Here are previous posts that chronicle the UAL bankruptcy saga.
Category Archives: Business – General
Big banks taking a flyer on UAL
UAL Corp.’s shopping excursion for reorganization take-out financing has apparently resulted in a preliminary commitment of a cool $3 billion in financing from four lending lending institutions that, if consummated, would allow the troubled airline to emerge from over three years in chapter 11. The four lenders involved in the negotiations with UAL are apparently Citigroup Inc., J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., General Electric Co. and Deutsche Bank AG.
The take-out financing would allow UAL to repay a $1.3 billion debtor-in-possession loan it has been relying on during its chapter 11 case, and will be incorporated in a reorganization plan that the company plans to file with its Chicago Bankruptcy Court soon. In the meantime, UAL continues to bleed, incurring a net loss of almost $275 million for July as the company incurs huge non-cash reorganization expenses relating to renegotiation of leases on key aircraft.
New Fifth Circuit automatic stay decision
To proceed or not to proceed? That is often the question that a creditor has in regard to taking further legal action against a debtor that has just filed a bankruptcy case.
Under section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code, a wide-ranging injunction — dubbed the “automatic stay” — arises immediately upon the filing of a bankruptcy case. That injunction enjoins — pending further Bankruptcy Court order — most legal actions by creditors against either the debtor or the debtor’s property, which is referred to in bankruptcy parlance as “property of the [debtor’s] estate.” Although the automatic stay is quite clear, it is often decidedly unclear whether a particular piece of property is “property of the estate” at the time of a debtor’s bankruptcy and, thus, subject to the automatic stay against creditor actions. Given that it is rarely a good idea to violate a court-imposed injunction, the breadth of the stay is an issue that tends to interest most business lawyers and businesspeople.
Merck gets hammered
As anticipated by this prior post, a Brazoria County jury found that Merck & Co. was liable for $253 million in damages ($24 million in actual damages, plus $229 million in punitive damages) as a result of its negligence in the death of a 59-year-old Robert Ernst, who at the time of death was taking Merck’s prescription painkiller Vioxx that over 20 million Americans took regularly before it was pulled from the market last year over concern that it might cause increased risk of strokes and heart attacks. The prior posts on the Merck/Vioxx trial are here, here, and here.
To file or not to file? That is the question.
The Wired GC — which is an excellent blog resource for any attorney who is, or advises, a general counsel of a company — has this interesting post today about the tough decisions that some currently troubled companies currently have regarding whether they should risk a delay in filing a reorganization case under chapter 11 until after the new Bankruptcy Code Amendments of 2005 go into effect on October 17. The Wired GC also points to this handy summary by Lorraine S. McGowen of the Orrick firm regarding the changes in chapter 11 practice that will result from the amendments.
My sense is that the October 17 effective date will generate a few more reorganizations than normal over the next couple of months, but not that many. Certainly, if a company knows that a chapter 11 filing is inevitable in the near future, then filing a case sooner rather than later makes sense in light of the impending changes to the Bankruptcy Code. However, management of even the most financially-challenged companies rarely believe that bankruptcy is inevitable, so most companies will take their chances with filing under the amended Bankruptcy Code, if necessary. Finally, the Wired GC speculates that the effect of the new amendments may be to increase the number of reorganizations that end up in liquidation, which — as we have seen in regard to the legacy airlines — may not be all that bad a thing.
KPMG rumbles with the McNair boys
This NY Times article has the skinny on the slobberknocking litigation that is taking place between harried but feisty KPMG and R. Cary and D. Calhoun McNair, sons of Houston Texans’ owner Bob McNair, over tax shelters that KPMG allegedly promoted to the McNairs back in 1999.
KPMG is walking a fine line in this lawsuit and numerous other civil lawsuits that have arisen over the firm’s former clients having problems with the IRS over claiming deductions for shelters that the IRS ultimately determined were abusive. Inasmuch as KPMG has already conceded that certain of its tax partners engaged in “unlawful conduct” in creating and selling the tax shelters, KPMG now has to juggle the dueling positions of being contrite while attempting to avoid a criminal indictment through negotiation of a deferred-prosecution agreement while fighting similar allegations in civil lawsuits with former clients to avoid potentially huge damage awards that could also sink the firm.
Trouble at SCI?
Houston-based funeral and cemetary operater Service Corporation International notified investors and federal regulators yesterday that it plans to delay its second-quarter earnings report to finish an accounting review involving 430,000 prepaid funeral services. The company said that it expects the delay to be about 10 days and it will file the second-quarter report shortly thereafter.
The company said it could have to restate financial reports for the first quarter of 2005, each of the four quarters of 2004 and 2003, and each of the fiscal years that ended Dec. 31, 2000 through 2004. The adjustments so far total $7.5 million, which — if those are the only adjustments — are not materially adverse for a company the size of SCI.
Holman Jenkins on the corporate case of the decade
Don’t miss Wall Street Journal ($) columnist Holman Jenkins’ analysis of the decision in the Disney case, which includes the following broadside at Disney CEO Michael Eisner:
Mr. Ovitz may be as disagreeable a personality as some press accounts insist. But the accusations leveled against him by Disney’s CEO (“psychopath,” “liar,” “incompetent”), which were demonstrably intended to be conveyed to the press, might more readily apply to Mr. Eisner himself.
Delta on the brink
This NY Times article reports that Delta Airlines is finalizing debtor-in-possession financing arrangements, which is a strong signal that the airline is likely to file a chapter 11 case in the near future.
Debtor-in-possession (“DIP”) financing provides loans that a chapter 11 debtor taps immediately after the commencement of a chapter 11 reorganization to bridge the debtor’s pre-bankruptcy financing arrangements with the financing that is ultimately approved under the debtor’s confirmed reorganization plan under which the debtor emerges from chapter 11. The U.S. Bankruptcy Code provides several legal protections to induce lenders to provide DIP financing, so DIP financing — particularly in big reorganization cases — has become a quite lucrative area of the financing business that attracts a number of large lenders. Consequently, although it would at first seem somewhat counterintuitive in regard to a financially-strapped company such as Delta, there is probably quite a bit of competition going on within the DIP financing community for Delta’s business in this area.
The SOX drain
The Sarbanes-Oxley legislation (pdf) is an example of government at its worst — a knee-jerk reaction that addressed a relatively small problem (i.e., crooked businesspeople) that had little to do with the circumstances (i.e., the bursting of a stock market bubble) that prompted legislators to think that they needed to do something in the first place. Inasmuch as the SOX legislation coincided with the beginning of this blog, the counterproductive nature of the legislation has been a regular subject here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here.
In this timely article, financial columnist Bruce Bartlett (his blog is here) notes that the SOX effect on the economy is only getting worse, and reviews the growing body of research on the negative economic impact of SOX: