A distressed company is considering an out‑of‑court exchange but runs into the holdout problem: the indenture requires 100% consent to change payment terms, and holdouts could sue. Analyze the trade‑offs between initiating a pre‑packaged Chapter 11 and proceeding with a pure out‑of‑court exchange with exit consents. Assume the company has NOLs that would be limited under Section 382 if an ownership change occurs.
EliteModel answer
The pure out‑of‑court exchange with exit consents can be faster and cheaper, but faces a fundamental risk: even with exit consents stripping covenants, holdouts can still sue for payment on the original terms and may refuse to tender, leaving the company with a rump of old bonds. If a significant number hold out, the debt overhang remains, and the company may be forced into Chapter 11 anyway. Moreover, the exchange would likely trigger an ownership change under Section 382, reducing NOL usage to the equity value times the long‑term tax‑exempt rate, possibly destroying value. In contrast, a pre‑packaged Chapter 11 solves the holdout problem by cramming down dissenting holders. It also may allow the company to elect 382(l)(5) if the creditors receive a majority of the equity and the business is continued, which would preserve NOLs without limitation. Thus, the pre‑pack offers a binding solution and better NOL preservation. The out‑of‑court exchange offers speed and lower costs, but the uncertainty of holdouts and potential NOL impairment often make it inferior unless the company has no material NOLs and near‑unanimous creditor support. The decision hinges on the size of NOLs, the cost of professional fees, and the percentage of creditors already committed.
Follow-up pressure:
- If the company has a large syndicated loan with a majority voting provision, how does that affect the holdout risk for the bank debt versus bonds?
- What is the difference between a pre‑packaged and a pre‑arranged Chapter 11 from a voting standpoint?
- Under what circumstances would the company intentionally let the NOL limitation apply to avoid a two‑year business continuity restriction?
This is an advanced Superday-level question with a full model answer, part of IB Atlas's practice bank.
Start freeRelated topics
- In a Chapter 11 case, a debtor proposes to sell substantially all assets under Section 363. A stalking‑horse bidder has agreed to pay $500 million in cash, and the secured lender plans to credit bid its $450 million claim. How does a credit bid work, and what protections exist for other bidders and creditors? What are the risks for unsecured creditors?
- The Second Circuit’s *Momentive* decision addressed the enforceability of make‑whole premiums in bankruptcy. What is the general rule regarding make‑whole premiums when a debtor repays debt ahead of schedule in Chapter 11, and why do creditors often lose their claim to such premiums?
- Compare a pre‑packaged Chapter 11 filing to a traditional free‑fall Chapter 11. Under what circumstances is a pre‑pack infeasible, forcing a company into a contested Chapter 11 proceeding?
- A debtor in possession seeks approval of a $120 million DIP facility that will prime the pre‑petition first‑lien lender’s $300 million claim. The first‑lien lender objects, arguing adequate protection is impossible because the collateral is worth only $250 million. What must the debtor demonstrate to obtain the priming lien, and how can it structure the DIP to overcome the objection?
- A company enters Chapter 11 with a $50 million superpriority DIP facility (unsecured), $10 million in other administrative claims, $200 million of pre‑petition first‑lien secured debt (collateral valued at $250 million), and $100 million of general unsecured claims. If the enterprise value is $280 million, compute recoveries for every class and state which class is the fulcrum.