šŸ’„Student Loans in America = a Hot MessšŸ’„

Will bankruptcy courts solve a national crisis?

Americaā€™s student loan crisis shows no signs of abating.

A plot of loan debt growth over the past twenty-odd years shows a healthy upward trajectory, with the current number at a whopping $1.7t dollars, 90% of which is held by the U.S. government. For context, Americans owe more in student loans than they do in either credit card or auto loan debt.

Over 40% of outstanding debt was for graduate school students, as masters students end up taking on more than twice the debt of their undergraduate counterparts without the corresponding incomes needed to justify the degrees. Though some colleges have pledged to adopt ā€œneed-blindā€ admission policies to ensure their programs are affordable, these policies are only feasible for the most elite institutions with the largest endowments. Moreover, the recent pandemic-induced financial crisis ā€” however short-lived it may have been for some segments of the economy ā€” has had a disproportionate impact on low income, first generation, women, and minority students. Those saddled with prohibitive loan debt are less likely to start small businesses and spend on goods and services, foreclosing them from the activities that keep the gears of our economy running. Not to mention the psychological burden of carrying around a load of debt that never seems to get smaller. M.H. Miller writes for The Baffler:

After ten years of living with the fallout of my own decisions about my education, I have come to think of my debt as like an alcoholic relative from whom I am estranged, but who shows up to ruin happy occasions. But when I first got out of school and the reality of how much money I owed finally struck me, the debt was more of a constant and explicit preoccupation, a matter of life and death.

Politicians are finally chipping away at the problem, albeit in small chunks. Congress recently agreed to cancel around $6b in student loans for borrowers that have a total and permanent disability. Recognizing the live nature of the issue, progressive democrats have called for cancellations of up to $50k in loan debt as a starting point.

Though the Biden administration campaigned in support of cancelling up to $10k in loan debt (one of the more moderate positions among the ā€˜20 Democratic presidential candidates), it has so far settled for just rolling a loan repayment freeze through May 1, ā€™22 (and that came at the 11th hour). Itā€™s questionable whether President Biden has the legal authority to cancel student loans without explicit Congressional authorization, and well, we know there hasnā€™t been any love lost between the President and the moderate Senators heā€™d need to corral for any cancellation bill to make it through Congress.  

Student Loans in Bankruptcy

Millions of debtors unable to pay back their loans, without any government relief in sight? Seems like yet another scenario where the bankruptcy courts can fill a void left by Congress.

But not so fast.

Since 1976, federal student loan debts have faced barriers to the traditional bankruptcy discharge available to other debtors, purportedly to protect taxpayers from footing the bill for savvy Americans who earned their degrees and then quickly used the discharging powers of the bankruptcy court to cleanse themselves of their student loans. Debtors were forced to wait at least five years after their loans were due to apply for a discharge. The law became progressively more prohibitive, as the waiting period was first extended to seven years before being eliminated altogether in 1990. Private loans were given the same treatment in 2005. Of course, the situation in 2005 was not nearly as dire: back then, student loans accounted for just 15% of a householdā€™s non-housing debt. Now? It is 40% ā€” it turns out that skyrocketing tuition inflationā€¦

ā€¦and predatory loan servicers that made it as difficult as possible to repay loans are a killer combination. Indeed, the latter issue is/was so big that last week DE-based Navient Corp. ($NAVI), one of the nationā€™s largest private student loan servicers, entered into a $1.85b settlement with a coalition of (39) state AGs for steering borrowers into interest-accruing forbearance plans rather than enrolling them in low-cost repayment plans. As part of the settlement (which is still subject to court approval), Navient will cancel the loans of 66k borrowers ā€” totaling $1.7b of loan forgiveness ā€” and make another $95mm in payouts to the states. The loans impacted by the proposed settlement were all issued between 2002 and 2010 and have all since defaulted (PETITION Note: this seems like a nice move by Navient: it will cancel defaulted debt it likely would struggle to get paid back anyway and remove a meaningful litigation overhang in the process. This company is publicly-traded: the stock moved down just a tick on the news. Interestingly, the stock is up 37.3% over the past five years and 94.5% over the past year. It even pays a pretty good dividend which, considering the allegations, is a bit of a perplexing wealth transfer.).

The Undue Burden Exception

As anyone even remotely acquainted with the American legal system knows, however, every rule has its exception. In the case of student loans though, the exception is especially difficult to satisfy. Debtors seeking to discharge their student loans must first initiate an adversary court proceeding in bankruptcy court against the loan holder (the U.S. Department of Education if the loan is publicly held, or whatever deep pocketed student loan servicer if the loan is private). Debtors must then follow Bankruptcy Code Ā§ 523(a)(8) and meet the Brunner test ā€” that is, prove an ā€œundue hardshipā€ amounting to what courts have called a ā€œcertainty of hopelessness.ā€ Considering a majority of circuit courts have adopted this standard, itā€™s unsurprising that bankruptcy courts havenā€™t been able to provide much relief to debtors, worthy or not. As a result, just 0.1% of debtors with educational loans who filed for bankruptcy even attempted to discharge them. Successful discharges are newsworthy events ā€” an aspiring lawyer who took out tens of thousands of dollars before failing multiple attempts at the bar was eventually granted a discharge (after a ten year long legal battle), but only after getting chewed out by a displeased district court that cited his wifeā€™s lack of full employment as a reason not to discharge his loans. Considering the paucity of discharge attempts, success stories are few and far between.

Recognizing the need to unburden debtors from the yoke of their loans, a few courts have split from this test. Rather than requiring the misery-inducing ā€œcertainty of hopelessnessā€ quoted above, the Eighth Circuit and some courts in the First Circuit evaluate the ā€œtotality of circumstancesā€ in evaluating a debtorā€™s hardship. These types of balancing tests are more debtor friendly than the rigid, inflexible, conjunctive test used by most courts. Indeed, one study found that debtors in a circuit using the totality standard were more than twice as likely to secure a discharge. However, recent efforts by bankruptcy judges to shift to this more forgiving standard have been rebuffed, setting the stage for a circuit split.

So, what gives? What happens when two courts of equal stature disagree on something of such immense consequence? Well, first, an enterprising law student will probably write a law review note on it.

Then, hopefully, the all-powerful Supreme Court of the United States will weigh in to set a unifying standard. SCOTUS had a perfect chance to do just that in McCoy vs. United States, a 2021 case where a 62 year-old woman requested the discharge of over $300k of student loan debt incurred while pursuing her doctorate degrees. The case was closely watched by the bankruptcy bar, with various luminaries of the bar submitting amicus briefs and pushing the court to resolve the split. As it tends to do, the SCOTUS denied certiorari, dooming Ms. McCoy to her unfavorable circuit court ruling and keeping student loan debtors in the dark about the dischargeability of their loans.

The ā€œEducational Benefitsā€ Distinction

Student loan debtors and their industrious attorneys developed a new method to attack the dischargeability of their loans; they have recently argued that some loans issued by private lenders arenā€™t the type of loans that ought to be guarded by the Bankruptcy Code. At the risk of oversimplification, Bankruptcy Code Ā§ 523(a)(8) exempts three types of student loans from discharge: (i) federally backed loans, (ii) loans received as ā€œeducational benefitsā€, and (iii) ā€œqualified educational loansā€ that fund only higher education expenses. Some debtors have taken the tack of arguing that their private loans donā€™t fit into the ā€œeducational benefitsā€ bucket and so, are prone to discharge. The policy reasons for such a distinction hold water ā€“ after all, thereā€™s no reason to coddle for-profit lenders who ended up making non-credit worthy loans. Last yearā€™s Homaidan case lent credence to these theories. The Second Circuit ruled that the private loans a student incurred to attend undergraduate school were not ā€œeducational benefitsā€ protected from discharge. Instead, loans would only qualify as ā€œeducational benefitsā€ when they bore resemblance to conditional grants, such as when a football player receives a scholarship contingent on their continued play on the football team, or an ROTC student receives a stipend for remaining in the program for at least two years. Unfortunately, the court didnā€™t actually qualify the scope of the discharge exception, making it difficult for future debtors to model their case after this one. Other circuits have adopted a similar approach to private loans, including the Fifth Circuit and the Tenth Circuit. We have yet another circuit split, as, again, most other circuits hold that both public and private loans are non-dischargeable without the undue hardship exception.

SCOTUS again had a chance to resolve which (if any) private loans qualify for discharge in Conti v. Arrowhead Indemnity Co. and again, it left loanees in the lurch by denying certiorari. As a result, itā€™ll remain unclear to debtors whether they have a strong discharge case, though courts that have considered the issue evaluate the purpose for which the loan was taken (i.e. a loan that was taken out for living expenses may be eligible for discharge, while one that was taken out for textbooks may not be). Considering that this line of cases would impact only private loans, which constitute only 10% of the total student loan market, itā€™s debatable whether a favorable ruling is the relief thatā€™s needed, anyway. Hello, Congress, anybody home?

Useless Congress: Want to Do Something for Once?

Has SCOTUS declined to weigh in because it sees Congress weighing the issue? Legislation to amend bankruptcy discharges has gotten as far as the ā€œFRESH START through Bankruptcy Actā€ introduced, on a (surprisingly and rare) bi-partisan basis, by Senators Durbin and Cornyn in August of 2021. The bill would make federal student loans eligible for discharge ten years after the first payment is due. The Code could benefit from an update in this area, considering the current law was written when student loans were not nearly the issue they are today. In addition, the inflexible Brunner case was decided when courts allowed some discharges of student loans taken out 7 years after filing, implying it may need an update. The quiet legislative front since the introduction of the bill, however, portends that an amendment is not in the cards anytime soon.

As an alternative, the Biden administration has pledged to alter its enforcement against student loan debtors seeking to discharge their loan debts. As the creditor to most student loanees, the Department of Education is tasked with contesting bankruptcy discharges. It has traditionally used the rigid ā€œcertainty of hopelessnessā€ standard to do so. As recent as October of 2021, Department officials testified before a House education subcommittee to acknowledge a need to reform the standard it uses. These changes have been backed in part by organizations including the American Bar Association, whose constituent lawyers leave school with an average of $138,500 in educational loan debt. For now, the department has agreed to any stay of proceedings requested by debtor plaintiffs until at least the student loan payment pause ends ā€“ once that expires in May though, itā€™s anyoneā€™s guess as to whatā€™ll happen. šŸ¤”

Itā€™s unclear whether bankruptcy courts retain a role in solving the student loan crisis. Chief Judge Morrisā€™ attempt to do so in the Rosenberg case was rebuffed, and future attempts seem destined for the same fate. Until then, and barring a congressional solution, will we see opportunistic student loan debtors traveling across the country to file in slightly more favorable circuit courts? Any model plaintiffs out there?  

šŸ˜ŽThe Professionals Weigh In. Part II.šŸ˜Ž

Pros opine on the big restructuring themes for 2022.

Source: Getty Images

Last Wednesday ā€” after publishing thousands and thousands of words over the course of 2021 ā€” we finally took a step back and shut the hell up (though we still had plenty to say in Sundayā€™s a$$-kicking paying subscribersā€™-only briefing).

Instead, we reached out to a variety of restructuring professionals* and asked:

āœ… What would be your selection for the chapter 11 bankruptcy case of the year and why (don't shamelessly list your own)?
āœ… What are 2-3 of the biggest restructuring themes to emerge out of 2021?
āœ… Given all of the excitement around mass tort cases like Boy Scouts of America, Purdue Pharma and J&J, what do you think Congress will do about venue and third-party releases, if anything? What should be done?

You can see their answers here.

This week we return to our panel with questions about the future. One important note: answers were, for the most part, submitted on December 13th. Enjoy.

PETITION: Put your prediction cap on: what do you think the 2-3 big restructuring themes of 2022 will be?

Pilar Tarry: ā€œOverall, 2022 will be in like a lamb, out like a lion. If we keep clawing back from this pandemic slowly, and all signs are it will continue to be slow, companies in the hospitality and tourism space will start to crumble. The pace of change in monetary policy will be interesting to watch. Itā€™s like a giant game of Jenga once all the obvious pieces are out.ā€ 

David Meyer: ā€œRising interest rates will not have an immediate impact on restructuring activity.  But inflation will play a larger role in the latter half of the year coupled with easing of federal assistance together with supply-chain challenges and a decrease in consumer spending. 2022 will largely mirror 2021 with acute and unforeseen situations emerging as the most likely restructuring candidates. Accelerated prepacks will become the norm, and the public announcements about the fastest in-court restructuring ever will cease.ā€

Brian Resnick: ā€œFirst, real estate. The pandemic abruptly altered many existing real estate trends.  Nobody is really sure where things will go next but investors are placing different betsā€” return to work vs. hybrid work; whether remote work leads to less office space or the pandemic leads to the need for more space so employees can be sufficiently distanced; finance and tech moving to Florida and Austin; business travel as usual or zoom meetings here to stay; demand for additional workspace in suburbs and warmer remote work destinations; continued growth of residential housing prices; rising interest rates cooling that growth.  Real estate bets are usually highly-levered and not all of these predictions can turn out to be right. Next, China. The restructuring world is obviously watching Evergrande and Kaisa closely, given the more than $5 trillion in debt that Chinese developers took on during the countryā€™s recent building boom.  Total sales among Chinaā€™s largest developers have plummeted over 35% year over year.  Any restructuring of the countryā€™s major developers could have cascading effects throughout a very large industry and national economy.  If the Chinese government allows for restructuring of these distressed businesses or does not successfully manage these economic pressures, the global reverberations can be massive. Lastly, opportunistic recapitalizations. Last year, companies with medium-term debt maturities amended and extended loans to take advantage of favorable rates and market conditions.  That trend will probably continue this coming year as companies with 2023-2024 maturities opportunistically look to recapitalize and get additional runway while the getting is good.ā€ 

Natasha Labovitz: ā€œI donā€™t think weā€™ve seen the end of targeted mass-tort restructurings, or the related focus on third-party releases.  As more people understand what the so-called ā€œTexas two-stepā€ really is (hint, itā€™s really no more or less than a spin-off using 21st century deal technology) I predict some of the furor will die down, but the litigation will remain.  Speaking of litigation, weā€™re also likely to continue to see cases that sharpen the line between what borrowers and majority groups of lenders can ā€“ and cannot ā€“ do to minority and holdout lender groups in the context of liability management.  And, Iā€™ll go way out on a limb and say that 2022 will be a year when some checks come due for businesses whose pandemic-era borrowing dwarfs their post-pandemic business prospects.  Lendersā€™ patience and the era of easy money will not last forever.ā€

Rachel Albanese: ā€œ(1) Will there be large restructurings in 2022? When will the bubble burst? (2) More mass tort action. (3) Your guess is as good as mine!ā€

Matthew Dundon: ā€œImpact of higher rates, including return of a key credit metric only analysts over 40 remember ā€“ EBITDA to interest expense; recency bias luring people into low-priced 2L and unsecured bonds and loans shortly after filings because that was the money-making trade for the past couple of years.ā€

George Klidonas: ā€œThird party releases, unless the Supreme Court or Congress weigh in sooner rather than later to determine the issue. Out of court restructurings, creditor on creditor violence, and liability management litigation will likely continue, particularly if certain market conditions continue.ā€

Damian Schaible: ā€œBootstrap A&Es ā€“ As many have discussed, we have added tremendous leverage to the market and capital structures over the past couple of years, and financing documents have gotten looser and looser.  As a result, there are often no traditional triggers, so capital structures can more easily persist through poor performance with liquidity issues or maturities being the only practical limitations.  With investors currently interested in keeping money to work wherever possible and obvious uncertainty in the future with respect to how long this remains the case, sponsor portfolio companies and public companies alike are looking for ways to extend maturity runways by multiple years.  Wherever traditional refinancings can be used, they will be.  Where leverage or performance issues mean thatā€™s not on the table, companies are engaging with existing creditors to seek maturity extensions in exchange for new junior capital and/or better documents and/or terms.  We will see this dynamic accelerate until rising rates begin to bring people to the table more naturally.

Liability Management - As youā€™ve often reported, docs are now looser than ever before, and when you add to that investors looking desperately for things to do, you get lots of liability management opportunities for companies that would be distressed in normal times.  We will see lots of liability management exercises in 2022 as a result.

Inflation and rising rates - Itā€™s no longer ā€œtransientā€ and itā€™s the only thing likely to stop the music at this current all-night market ragerā€¦. Inflation is the one thing the Fed canā€™t really manage away, and it would lead to rising interest rates that would stop the party for a lot of severely over-levered balance sheets.  (How is that for mixing metaphors?!) Who knows if it will happen in 2022 or later, but rising rates could change the game.ā€

Chris Ward: ā€œFirst, I could have used this as a 2021 theme as well, but the continued downturn in the restructuring industry.  It will undoubtedly change, but the start of 2022 will continue with the entire industry continuing its sabbatical.  I believe my ā€™21 prediction was when is the wave coming?  Unfortunately, the answer may once again be ā€“ next year. Second, scrutiny.  Whether its third-party releases, independent directors, conflicted professionals, the enhanced scrutiny on the legal profession will again be a prominent part of our practices. And, third, out of court alternatives. Given the state of the economy and liquidity available to PE firms, the biggest trend may be what happens outside of bankruptcy courts.  There are still plenty of distressed companies and there are still many deals being done.  We have seen an uptick in Article 9 sales, distressed M&A deals being done out of court, and state law alternatives like ABCs and Receiverships.  When times are tight, people want to do the deal and not have to pay the costs of a full chapter 11 process.  I think this trend will continue into ā€™22.ā€

Navin Nagrani: ā€œFirst, just technically speaking  - interest rates rising in 2022 coupled with the Fed plans for tapering will generally cause market and asset valuations to come down and the cost of indecision and inaction to increase (as it relates to loans in workout). Second, I think we will see more private equity sponsor backed loans in workout amongst traditional banks and non-bank lenders (BDCs, private credit groups, SBICs, etc.). Lastly, real estate in general is a slow moving asset compared to other assets like inventory or receivables..  There are some fundamental issues going on with certain types of real estate right now like office that will eventually make its way onto the restructuring scene as rents roll over and/or debt comes due.ā€

Steven Korf: ā€œThird-party releases and venue shopping will continue to be hot topics into 2022. As a healthcare advisor, I would be remiss if I didn't mention the themes we are predicting in the healthcare industry in 2022. With temporary stimulus funding drying up from the CARES Act, the financial strain on hospitals and health systems will no longer be masked. While we expect hospitals may receive limited funding from the various federal infrastructure and support packages going forward, it will only provide a short-term solution to long-term operational problems and extend the timeline for entities that would otherwise be absorbed by larger systems, file for bankruptcy, or close.ā€

PETITION: What is the disruptive innovation trend that youā€™re most curious about and why?

Natasha Labovitz: ā€œIā€™m interested to see what happens next in the so-called ā€œGreat Resignationā€. Is this a short-term pandemic-driven phenomenon, fueled by media hype and a very catchy name, or is it in fact a societal shift that has been long in coming, which ultimately will rebalance the economic power between employers and employees and reshape the definition of career success?ā€

Chris Ward: ā€œHybrid court hearings.  Rightfully so, much ado is made about the cost of bankruptcy. However, virtual court hearings can drastically reduce the cost of professional fees for cash strapped debtors. Hybrid hearings would allow the soccer team that some firms send to the first day hearing to stay home and virtually participate.  We are approaching two years of virtual hearings and the courts and the entire restructuring industry have not missed a beat. This trend should continue, with the caveat that some evidentiary hearings and case events must be in person to delve into the veracity of the witnesses, but this is a positive trend that benefits everyone.ā€

David Meyer: ā€œZoom and 5G/increased high-speed connectivity.  Will facilitate work-from-home trends, change the way we do business (all in favor of Zoom first-day hearings raise your hand), how we shop, how we interact with each other, and how we manage our teams and optimize our culture at our respective firms.  It is inescapable that all restructuring professionals have a different work experience than they did just a few years ago, and this is arguably most impacted at the more junior levels.  The impact is at its earliest stages and will have long-lasting consequences.ā€

Brian Resnick: ā€œIn recent years, particularly in 2021, direct lending has increased precipitously in number of funds (to over 700), capital (to over $300 billion) and deal size (some recent ones exceeding $2 billion).  A common direct lending unitranche structure, where a single lender (or small group) holds the debt (sometimes a single lien, first out / second out structure) without syndication, has been a major selling point for direct lenders to act more like partners invested in the borrowerā€™s success.  This structure allows a borrower that becomes distressed to negotiate with one or a small group of lenders.  The large-scale direct lending market did not exist prior to the 2008 crash, and it will be interesting to see how direct lenders manage the next downturn.  In the current borrowerā€™s market, lenders competing hard for deals often try to market themselves as having a collaborative and flexible client-service reputation.  If defaults start to increase, direct lending funds will have to make tough calls to balance their drive to compete for new loan origination (to deploy significant accumulated capital) with the need to minimize losses from existing portfolios.  Direct lending transactions typically (though not always) still include leverage ratio-based financial maintenance covenants, so those lenders have more ability to push for restructuring than under the ā€œcovenant-liteā€ term loans that have become the norm across the broadly syndicated market. Direct lending structures also often include additional powerful lender protections, like pledge rights allowing lenders to replace boards.  The documentation used in direct lending transactions has not yet been tested as extensively as for more traditional loan market structures.ā€

Rachel Albanese: ā€œActivist ā€œstonkā€ investors.  For example, will Macyā€™s cave to the recent demand to create a Tesla showroom in its flagship stores and start accepting crypto? How will AMCā€™s new popcorn business fare? Will any CEO of a public company actually show up at an investor conference sans pants and, more importantly, how would it affect the companyā€™s stock?šŸš€ šŸš€ ā€œ

Damian Schaible: ā€œSPACsā€¦. In 2021, we saw tremendous numbers of both early stage and potentially distressed companies go public through SPACs.  I am interested to see how these companies perform longer term and what the market implications will be.  Traditionally, for companies to go public, the companies and their governance, financial reporting and other systems had to be much more mature than many SPAC companies are ā€“ the traditional IPO underwriters would want to see late stage, seasoned companies looking to go through a traditional IPO process.  There obviously isnā€™t a lot of debt on these companies, so it is unlikely to lead to large numbers of traditional restructurings, but I am interested to see how they operate longer term and what regulatory and litigation impacts may develop.ā€

Navin Nagrani: ā€œWFH has created massive ripples in the way people work and interact with others.  What is our new normal? Decentralized finance is happening - what are the downstream implications and opportunities for restructuring professionals?ā€  

George Klidonas: ā€œAlthough I am not necessarily certain if, how and when cryptocurrency will completely disrupt the system it was intended to, i.e., replacing fiat or government-issued currency.  But one thing is for sure.  Cryptocurrency is infiltrating our everyday life more and more, e.g., Overstock, PayPal, Etsy, Starbucks, Dallas Mavericks, and the more mainstream it becomes, the more likely we are to see disruption in both the industries it is accepted in, as well as the financial institution sector as a whole.ā€

Ryan Preston Dahl: ā€œNo idea what ā€œdisruptiveā€ even means anymore.  Iā€™m not a millennial.ā€

Steven Korf: ā€œI am interested to see how Artificial Intelligence (AI) and machine learning, as well as new entrants to traditional healthcare delivery, will continue to disrupt the industry.

AI and machine learning are future disruptors that cryptocurrency analysts and Elon Musk, Disrupter-In-Chief, are suggesting will reframe life over the next decade.  Both will be backbones to support predictive modeling for global health trends, climate change, and geographic displacements, which could contribute to economic upheaval.

Large commercial corporations and private equity firms have entered the healthcare market and are providing new channels of care and disrupting current providers. While this may be painful for many existing traditional organizations, I predict that we will see improvements to the delivery of care at more cost-effective rates with the new entrants.ā€

Pilar Tarry: ā€œWell if you must know, crypto.  Because I just donā€™t get it.  Now that Gwyneth is officially in the game though, maybe I should circle back on that.ā€

Matthew Dundon: ā€œRestructuring professionals and distressed investors have no idea of the informality of ā€“ or absolute absence of ā€“ corporate organizational structures and financial records in even quite large blockchain / crypto / defi companies (or ā€œcompaniesā€ in some cases).  Failures of those entities will be extremely challenging in every sense (conceptual, execution, etc.).ā€

Dan Dooley: ā€œBack to the Future Supply Chains. Itā€™s already started but you will see significant resourcing back to North America from the Pacific Rim and especially China as the labor cost differential is not nearly as great as it was 10 years ago, the pandemic has exposed the logistics risks of over-the-ocean sourcing and the relatively new political risks with sourcing specifically in China and perhaps in Taiwan as well.ā€

PETITION: What are you ā€œshortā€ going in to 2022 and what are you ā€œlongā€? 

Steven Korf: ā€œIn 2022, Iā€™m "short" China based on the evolving but unresolved Evergrande situation (multiple defaults and the Chinese governmentā€™s recent lowering of capital ratio requirements for its banks which seems to hint at something more serious) and recent IPOs for overvalued tech and direct to consumer retail companies.

LONG: ??? I am a restructuring professional.ā€

Natasha Labovitz: ā€œShort the ski season in my Southern Vermont homeland, where the lack of snow makes it feel anything like Christmas-time as I type this.  Long party dresses, airplane tickets and Broadway, as pent-up demand seems to be overcoming all fear of COVID variants.  Omicron who??ā€

Chris Ward: ā€œLong ā€“ Restructuring professionals.  Conservatively, $4 TRILLION was pumped into the U.S. economy during the pandemic.  Not to mention the recent $500 MILLION infrastructure bill.  Inflation is already running rampart.  Omicron (and whatever the next variant will be) are threatening closures again.  The supply chain may never recover.  This economy will crumble faster than Kevin Spacey in House of Cards.  Like dragons in Game of Thrones, restructuring professionals will resurface and rule Westeros once again! Short your 401(k). See the foregoing.ā€

Brian Resnick: ā€œShort predictability.  Major freefall chapter 11ā€™s have become fewer and farther between, but market conditions have put pressure on the usual tools that lenders and potential acquirers use to try to keep prearranged and prepackaged cases streamlined.  Stalking horse protections are less likely to deter competing bidders when valuations can rise rapidly.   Lenders looking to use a fulcrum security to acquire a debtor will continue to face the high-class problem of payment in full as more junior creditors or even shareholders take a large share of exit ownership.  A growing number of sophisticated players are under intense pressure to find strategic advantages in a smaller number of cases, leading to increasingly creative and aggressive strategies.  Out-of-court lender-on-lender violence in liability management transactions (uptierings and drop-down financings) has become increasingly common. A ā€œfirst lienā€ piece of paper doesnā€™t assure a lasting first lien position the way it used to.  More than ever, stakeholders need to look carefully around every corner to anticipate non-obvious arguments and angles that could weaken their position and leverage in a restructuring.

Long volatility and major disruption.  The world feels like it is going through the most rapid rate of change in my lifetime, in both positive and negative ways.  Weā€™ve seen a surge in development of new potentially-transformative industries based on technologies like artificial intelligence, the metaverse, blockchain and cryptocurrencies, electric (and maybe self-driving) cars. At the same time, there is increased focus on growing wealth-disparity, social polarization, climate-based risk, inflation and other collective challenges.  Aggressive fiscal policy has so far allowed the US economy to dodge the economic shocks of the pandemic, and it is hard to predict what will disrupt the current equilibrium or when that will happen.  Upcoming efforts to tighten todayā€™s easy money fiscal policies during a credit-fueled market boom will require the federal reserve to walk across a shaky tightrope with lots of risk for a misstep.ā€

Rachel Albanese: ā€œIā€™m ā€œshortā€ low orbit ā€œspaceā€ travel (itā€™s like going to The Four Corners and saying youā€™ve been to each state). Iā€™m ā€œlongā€ DTC ā€“ not necessarily the existing brands (Allbirds!) but the concept ā€“ and malls too.ā€

Damian Schaible: ā€œShort Traditional Restructurings - Until inflation and rising rates call the police on the party, there wonā€™t be a lot of traditional restructurings.  As discussed above, sponsors and public companies will use market refis, SPACs, additional leverage, liability management and bootstrap A&Es to delay the inevitable as long as possible, and traditional equitizations will be fewer and further between.

Long Liability Management and Bootstrap A&Es ā€” Loose docs and free flowing money will lead to more liability management and ā€œbootstrapā€ amend and extend transactions to buy runway for sponsors, equity and junior debt.ā€

Ryan Preston Dahl: ā€œMy views on ā€œshortā€ remain completely unchanged since I last had the chance to chat with you fine fellasā€”although I do wish Mr. Springsteen a happy holiday.  In terms of 2022, Iā€™m very long Amazonā€™s new ā€œSecond Ageā€ series derived from the Lord of the Rings legendarium.  My fellow nerds in the PETITION readership know exactly what Iā€™m talking about.ā€

Dan Dooley: ā€œShort technology and the internet companies who are struggling to be cash flow positive. This bubble will burst just like the technology sector did in the year 2000 for Y2K. Long anything Mexico, which will be a big winner from the pandemic.ā€

David Meyer: ā€œI am ā€œshortā€ on returning to the office (and business travel) returning to pre-pandemic practices.  The world has changed and there is no such thing as ā€œa return to normalā€. I am ā€œlongā€œ that 2022 will present further opportunities to balance the best in-person aspects of our work with the lessons learned over the last 20+ months to create a better, more enjoyable, and more efficient working environment ā€“ firms that do this well will be able to create stronger cultures that will generate sizable benefits over the long term compared to those who get left behind.ā€

Navin Nagrani: ā€œā€˜Shortā€™: I generally think the ā€œmetaverseā€ and most cryptocurrencies are in somewhat of a hype bubble - too many get rich stories/schemes.  There is no easy money over long periods of time and I think this principle will play out here as well. ā€˜Longā€™: I continue to believe that relationships and health compound with energy, intention and time just as much as money does.  I am ā€œlongā€ on focusing on whatā€™s really important in 2022.ā€  

George Klidonas: ā€œShort Auto Sector.  The auto sector is likely to see short term stress particularly at a time when high demand for semiconductors and global bottlenecks throw supply chains into disarray.  These supply chain constraints could lead to decreased revenues, which in turn, challenge the ability for companies to deal with funded debt (especially at a time when the industry has taken on more debt).  And it is unclear whether higher car prices can fully offset reduced sales volumes.  Beyond 2022?  The industryā€™s migration toward autonomous vehicles could lead to long term distress for certain players in the auto industry.  But time will tell.

Long Financial Institutions. With the Federal Reserve signaling that they are going to raise interest rates in 2022, banks and financial institutions are likely to see an increase in revenues.  And with banks sitting on a ton of cash, they are likely redeploy capital back into the system.  I believe financial institutions (e.g., retail, commercial and investment banks, as well as brokerages) and FinTech are going to be big winners in 2022 if raise start to go up.ā€

Pilar Tarry: ā€œLong: Cybersecurity firms/technologies as privacy and security concerns increase with higher use of technology and living more of life online. Short: Hospitality, tourism and urban mobility. Long: E-logistics companies. Short: the ultra-short case, except where the business consequences are truly disastrous. Long: Anyone who can successfully navigate the growing divide between high and middle income countries and poor countries, and similar divisions in families here at home. Short: 2nd years, after almost two years of trying to learn how to do this work in a WFH environment, itā€™s not surprising theyā€™re looking at their options.ā€   

šŸ¤”

Pilar Tarry is a Managing Director at AlixPartners. Damian Schaible is a Partner at Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP. Rachael Albanese is the Vice-Chair of the Restructuring Group and a Partner at DLA Piper. Dan Dooley is a Principal and CEO at MorrisAnderson. Ryan Preston Dahl is a Partner at Ropes & Gray LLP. Chris Ward is a Partner and Practice Chair at Polsinelli. Brian Resnick is a Parter at Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP. Navin Nagrani is an Executive Vice President at Hilco Real Estate. Natasha Labovitz is a Partner and the Co-Chair of Debevoise & Plimptonā€™s restructuring group. Steven Korf is a Senior Managing Director at and Co-Founder of ToneyKorf Partners. Matthew Dundon is a Founder and Principal of Dundon Advisers LLC. David Meyer is a Partner and Co-Head of Vinson & Elkinsā€™ Restructuring and Reorganization group. George Klidonas is a Partner at Latham & Watkins LLP.

šŸ’„A Bomb Just Dropped in Purdue PharmašŸ’„

District Court Judge Vacates Bankruptcy Court Approval of Sackler Releases

Letā€™s get this out of the way: yes, clearly, Purdue Pharma is UNEQUIVOCALLY the biggest loser of the week. This is literally the easiest call weā€™ve ever had to make.

In a 142-page opinionJudge McMahon of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dropped a bombshell of a decision and order on appeal vacating Judge Drainā€™s bankruptcy plan confirmation order ā€” an order that, among other things, blessed non-consensual non-debtor-third-party liability releases of the Sackler f*ckfaces. Weā€™ll spare you the lengthy read (though we do recommend it): the Judge concluded that the USDC had both legal and factual de novo review; that there was zero statutory predicate for Judge Drain to approve the releases (effectively neutering the catch-all power of Bankruptcy Code section 105 in the process); that, in the absence of statutory authority, there is no such thing as ā€œresidual authorityā€; and that the Sacklers are just generally sacks of sh*t. Ok, ok, Judge McMahon didnā€™t expressly say that last bit but it is implied: after all, as the Judge takes pains to note, itā€™s clear from the factual record that the Sacklers consulted with bankruptcy attorneys immediately after entering into a ā€˜07 plea deal and then, over a period of many years, siphoned off assets (~$10b) into impregnable legal structures in far flung places to shield themselves in the event of an eventual bankruptcy they knew was well within the realm of possibility. These people truly are something else.

These people will also most certainly appeal ā€” something Judge McMahonā€¦.

TO READ THE REST OF THIS ARTICLE, YOU MUST BE A PAID SUBSCRIBER. YOU CAN DO SO HERE.

šŸ˜Ž2021: Restructuring Professionals Weigh In. Part I.šŸ˜Ž

Experts Cite Purdue Pharma and Hertz as Bankruptcy Cases of the Year

Not to state the obvious, but itā€™s been a wild year. Weā€™ve covered it like crazy, twice a week, every week with barely a break.

So now itā€™s time for us to shut the hell up and give others an opportunity to share their perspectives. We reached out to a variety of restructuring professionals* for their thoughts on a few things. Without giving anyone much lead-time whatsoever, we only had one bit of real guidance: ā€œ[t]he best answers are succinct with personality.ā€

In this edition you get to see what our panel had to say ā¬‡ļø.** You can be the judge as to who can follow instructions and who cannot. šŸ˜œ

Damian Schaible is a Partner at Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP. Rachael Albanese is the Vice-Chair of the Restructuring Group and a Partner at DLA Piper. Dan Dooley is a Principal and CEO at MorrisAnderson. Ryan Preston Dahl is a Partner at Ropes & Gray LLP. Chris Ward is a Partner and Practice Chair at Polsinelli. Brian Resnick is a Parter at Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP. Navin Nagrani is an Executive Vice President at Hilco Real Estate. Natasha Labovitz is a Partner and the Co-Chair of Debevoise & Plimptonā€™s restructuring group. Steven Korf is a Senior Managing Director at and Co-Founder of ToneyKorf Partners. Matthew Dundon is a Founder and Principal of Dundon Advisers LLC. David Meyer is a Partner and Co-Head of Vinson & Elkinsā€™ Restructuring and Reorganization group. Pilar Tarry is a Managing Director at AlixPartners.

** You can see last yearā€™s entries here and here.


PETITION: What would be your selection for the chapter 11 bankruptcy case of the year and why (don't shamelessly list your own)?

Source: Getty Images

First, here is Damian ā€” in true lawyerly fashion ā€” threading the needle with a generous interpretation of our ā€œdonā€™t shamelessly list your ownā€ instruction šŸ˜‚ā€¦.

Damian Schaible: ā€œPurdue [Pharma] is likely the most complex Chapter 11 case in United States history. It had more than $40 trillion of filed claims, more than 614,000 claimants and more than 120,000 creditors voting on the plan, each of which is without precedent. The more than 15 interlocking settlements embodied in the plan include the federal government, 38 attorneys general and 11 ad hoc groups representing every conceivable category of claimant against the company and the Sackler family. The plan received virtually universal support, with more than 95% of creditors voting to accept. It contemplates turning the debtors into a public benefit company for the benefit of the American people and also embodies a $4.325 billion settlement with the shareholders.ā€  

I know you said not list my own case.  Davis Polk leads Purdue as you know, but I have nothing to do with it, and itā€™s really hard not to list it in my mindā€¦.ā€

Natasha Labovitz: ā€œPurdue [Pharma] has to be the case of the year. Itā€™s significant in dollar value, but much more importantly, it will have a meaningful impact in big cities and hometowns across the country.  The company is on the verge of obtaining approval for a $4.35 billion settlement payment and leveraging that to provide critically important opioid abatement and treatment options in the local communities where help is needed.  Hulu dramatizations and Elizabeth Warren criticism notwithstanding, the settlement in Purdue represents a faster, better and more evenhandedly positive outcome for claimants than endless years of litigation that would delay recoveries, reward some litigants at the expense of others, and divert available funding to the lawyers representing both sides instead of to the communities where it can be most helpful. Iā€™m not saying paying lawyers is intrinsically a bad thing ā€“ but in this case, I think thereā€™s a higher and better use for the Sacklersā€™ settlement funds.ā€

Dan Dooley: ā€œPurdue Pharma. We will soon find out whether 3rd Party Releases in a Chapter 11 Plan are what Congress intended or not. I think they are not!ā€

Ryan Preston Dahl: ā€œPurdue [Pharma], without question.  Purdue has crystallized so many legislative, social, and public health issues beyond the scope of this particular article or any article for that matterā€”separate and apart from Purdue ā€œjustā€ being a massively complex chapter 11.  And, for me, the most interesting part is the extent to which at least some members of Congress seem to have Purdue squarely in mind when they speak to, or about, legislating the Bankruptcy Code.  But this legislative discourse seems to be occurring without at least some sense of irony or self-awareness.  One might say that itā€™s largely a result of Congressional inaction in the face of a massive public health challenge that has caused the bankruptcy courts to become, it seems, the only forum available to address these challenges in a collective way.ā€

But there are others who thought Hertz stole the showā€¦

Source: Getty Images

Rachel Albanese: ā€œHertz, because of the headlines and the positive outcome for stakeholders.ā€

Matthew Dundon: ā€œHertz. Rough start and then solid run to a par+ outcome.  Broader economy helped, but still saw textbook executions of many different value creation strategies by different stakeholders.ā€

Chris Ward: ā€œHertz.  Plain and simple.  Kudos to the professionals that shepherded Hertz through chapter 11.  Taking a floundering car rental company through a process that turned a zero cent recovery into a 100% return for creditors and a distribution to equity.  That is what chapter 11 is all about. The Hertz debtors used every play in the playbook to maximize value and were not afraid to take chances to get to the appropriate end game.ā€

Brian Resnick: ā€œMy vote for case of the year is Hertz.  In summer 2020, many in the industry (maybe even me) chuckled when Hertz shares popped above $5. The company had just filed for chapter 11, the pandemic had shut down travel, and the restructuring community debated whether Judge Walrath should even let the bankruptcy estate exploit naĆÆve speculators by selling $1 billion of shares that that debtorsā€™ own lawyer admitted in open court ā€œmight be worthless.ā€

The story of 2021 is how equity investors got the last laugh.  It wasnā€™t just frothy equity markets, the ā€œmeme stockā€ phenomenon, and masses of individual investors helping boost struggling companies like AMC and Gamestop.  Large, sophisticated distressed funds that had raised significant war chests found themselves in competitive auctions for chapter 11 debtors like Hertz, putting shareholders in the money by billions of dollars.  Equity committees also became important players in major 2021 bankruptcy exits of Latam and Garrett Motion.  Economic logic says this trend cannot become the norm ā€“ companies generally will not file for chapter 11 when they can raise equity instead.  But in the topsy-turvy world of 2021, betting on equity recoveries had a nice run.ā€      

Steven Korf: ā€œThe Hertz bankruptcy. The case looked a lot more like the old school, successful, balance sheet restructurings we used to see in Chapter 11, versus the 363 liquidation sales that have become the standard more recently. Secondly, Belk deserves a notable mention for emerging from bankruptcy with record speed, though some think the jury is still out on whether the restructuring will ultimately be successful.ā€

David Meyer: ā€œHertz.  A symbol of all that 2020 and 2021 have to offer including a freefall into chapter 11 near the height of the pandemic, an unprecedented (and successful!) effort to raise equity inside a chapter 11 process that was subsequently halted, the Company gathers itself and seeks to utilize the tools of chapter 11 to right-size its balance sheet while exploring alternatives, the company then becomes propped by and leverages the open capital markets, a robust auction ensues behind the scenes and then publicly involving significant competition among sophisticated financial investors fighting over more limited opportunities, an equity committee organizes and emerges with a voice while the company simultaneously operates in chapter 11 but yet traveling remains behind its pre-pandemic heights, and a multi-day in-person gathering in Florida to decide the Companyā€™s fate (and the winning bidder).  Normal?ā€

And then there is a offbeat choice which, we should point out, is rather interesting:

Navin Nagrani: ā€œRather than being micro and picking a specific case - will just zoom out and select "Subchapter Vā€ and its second year of being in place as my selection here.   More small to medium sized businesses are going to end up going thru some sort of formal restructuring via this route.  It is important for restructuring players to understand not only the specific technical aspects of these new provisions but also some of the nuances and pitfalls associated with actually working within this relatively new framework. There is now enough case material to review and learn from.ā€


PETITION: What are 2-3 of the biggest restructuring themes to emerge out of 2021?

Source: Getty Images

Damian Schaible: ā€œJunior capital coming into situations to buy runway ā€“ Unprecedented money raised and looking for homes has led to a number of situations where equity or junior creditors have been eager to put in additional junior capital quickly and flexibly in situations that in normal times would be restructurings.  I have been involved in a number of situations in the past year where the presumptive fulcrum creditors have headed toward a traditional restructuring and equitization only to have junior capital come in behind them to prop up the companies.  We will see how these work out in the coming year!

Third party releases ā€“ Purdue and the Boy Scouts cases have brought the somewhat arcane world of third party releases in bankruptcy cases under a real public microscope. There are a lot of social discussions underway about the propriety of non-debtors being released in cases, but the reality is that this type of release is completely de rigueur and more importantly often absolutely required to get settlements and restructurings done.  Congress is now involved and some cases can become much tougher if the rules are monkeyed with extensively.

Super short prepacks ā€“ We are seeing more and more ā€œone day prepacksā€ used to effectuate consensual restructurings.  Once the very hard work of devising and achieving full consensus is done, we have traditionally had to wait (and pay for) about two months of process and delay.  Courts like the Southern District of Texas have been leaders in designing ā€œdue process ordersā€ to make sure that everyone gets notice and an opportunity to come to court in the event of any impact on their rights.  So long as this important protection is provided, in the right case, it is just more efficient and significantly cheaper not to have to wait around in court to have a couple of extra hearings.ā€

Natasha Labovitz: ā€œWell, the effects of the pandemic stimulus and easily available liquidity mean that weā€™ve all seen our kids and other loved ones a lot more.  Letā€™s not lose sight of that being a really good thing.  That said, it seems the restructuring professionals who have been re-deploying in the M&A, finance and mass tort arenas throughout 2021 are ready to return to more mainstream restructuring activity in the coming year.  As the M&A and financing markets become increasingly more frothy at the same time the pandemic stimulus begins to recede and the US and global political environments begin to appear less stable, it looks increasingly like the kind of late-stage credit cycle that puts our industry on high alert.  (Maybe a little like the way my dog perks up and trots to the kitchen when she hears the refrigerator door open ā€¦ but surely we are more dignified than that.)ā€

Rachel Albanese: ā€œ(1) Whereā€™s the Beef? Lots of money in the market led to dramatically less restructuring work in 2021. (2) The ā€œtoggleā€ plan ā€“ it was showing up everywhere for a while.ā€

Steven Korf: ā€œThe future of third-party releases (Purdue [Pharma]). The future of venue shopping (Johnson & Johnson and NRA).ā€

David Meyer: ā€œCreditor on creditor tactics will continue with a dearth of restructuring opportunities. Continued shift from distressed for control funds to shareholder activist strategies and direct lending. Companies with scale that can tap capital markets do so and refinance or address near-term maturities; smaller companies are left behind for consolidation where available.ā€

Matthew Dundon: ā€œLimits to third party releases, importance of fundamentals (e.g. EV:EBITDA relative value), and he who fights Fed is dead.ā€ 

Navin Nagrani: ā€œFirst, in periods of market dislocation, the perception of value is sometimes more important than actual value (Wall Street Bets mania, etc.). Second, industry practitioners have continued to accomplish things remotely that would have historically only have happened in person (court appearances, pitches, internal meetings, etc.). And, third, no one that I know of was able to predict the general nature the markets inverted in 2021 (in a mostly positive way) from the depths of the chaos COVID created in 2020.ā€      

Brian Resnick: ā€œFirst, equity committees.  Equity committees played major roles in several of the biggest cases of the year.  From Hertz to Latam, bidding wars between sophisticated distressed investors put shareholders in the ā€œfulcrumā€ position and gave them an important seat at the table negotiating bankruptcy exits.  It took an unlikely set of circumstances (and singular pandemic), but with stock market exuberance continuing, equity committees may become a more regular feature in cases with unpredictable market upside potential. Second, the Texas Two-Step. J&J made the Texas-Two Step famous enough to get Congressā€™s (negative) attention, following attempts by a number of other companies (Georgia PacificCertainTeedTrane Technologies) to try to cabin massive tort liabilities by running these types of divisive mergers through bankruptcy in the Western District of North Carolina.  It is unclear whether any of these efforts will succeed or the tactic will be shut down legislatively or by the courts, but this novel maneuver may mark the high-water mark of restructuring aggressiveness and creativity.  Until the next one. And third, remote hearings.  Bankruptcy megacases in SDNY, Delaware, SD Texas and elsewhere continue to be conducted virtually even after many of their sister district courts and state courts are back in-person.  There are good practical reasons that bankruptcy may be more conducive to Zoom. And it appears that a larger share of bankruptcy court business may stay online even after the pandemic ends.  Aside from the obvious pros and cons, this development could also impact ongoing venue reform discussions.  For better and worse, videoconferencing makes every jurisdiction ā€œlocalā€ enough that any employee or creditor can easily and cheaply participate in proceedings.  On the flip side, it also makes it less expensive for sophisticated bankruptcy professionals in the major restructuring markets to efficiently run megacases in faraway jurisdictions.ā€

Ryan Preston Dahl: ā€œJust one:  inflation.  This isnā€™t so much a 2021 theme as it is a precursor of things in the ā€œGhost of Christmas Yet to Comeā€ sort of way.  After all, inflation was ā€œtransitoryā€ in 2021 until somebody told us it wasnā€™t.  But inflation certainly feels real for every company Iā€™m working with.  And we have a generation of operational managers, financial professionals, and legal advisors that have never seen, let alone experienced, inflation in any real (pardon the pun) way.  But now itā€™s here and weā€™re all going to figure out what to do with it.ā€

Dan Dooley: ā€œThird Party Releases: will they survive? I doubt it. The Texas 2-Step. How is it possible to fraudulently convey assets under Texas law with legal insulation? I donā€™t believe the Texas 2-Step will survive federal legislation. Bankruptcy venue reform. Given the backdrop of 3rd party release abuse, the absurdity of the Texas 2-Step and some ridiculous bankruptcy venue abuses, I think venue reform is likely to be part of a Bankruptcy Reform Act which will significantly reduce the importance of NYC, Wilmington and Houston Bankruptcy Courts. This legislation will likely not happen until 2023.ā€

Chris Ward: ā€œThe three themes I took note of in 2021 were (i) the attack on the independent director (whether this is fact or fiction still needs to play out), (ii) the mass tort dump and run (unfortunately, we probably have not seen the last of these), and (iii) more chapter 11 filings in the ā€œhomeā€ jurisdiction of the debtor (will Houston continue to dominate Delaware and New York in chapter 11 filings? Who knew so many companies had their primary place of business in Houston?).ā€


Source: Getty Images

PETITION: Given all of the excitement around mass tort cases like Boy Scouts of America, Purdue Pharma and J&J, what do you think Congress will do about venue and third-party releases, if anything? What should be done?

Natasha Labovitz: ā€œItā€™s hard to see Congress accomplishing much of ANYTHING in 2022, and my best guess is that an amendment to the Bankruptcy Code isnā€™t going to be the ā€œunicornā€ type legislation that Democrats and Republicans are actually able to agree upon and get passed.  But honestly, Iā€™ve long given up being able to predict what is going to happen in Washington, and I havenā€™t forgotten the early 2000s, when bankruptcy reform legislation that had first been introduced in 1997 -- and had been tried, and failed, in just about every subsequent year ā€“ suddenly attracted bipartisan support (including from Joe Biden) and surprised us all by passing in 2005 in the form of BAPCPA.  So, the pending legislation bears watching.ā€

Chris Ward: ā€œVenue is not broken, so it doesnā€™t have to be fixed.  The jurisdictions that have historically challenged venue have ā€œfixedā€ their concerns via their local rules.  The pandemic also mooted most venue concerns and now anyone can appear virtually at hearing.  That phantom creditor from Enron from 20 years ago, could now participate ā€“ regardless of where the case was filed. Fortunately, Congress cannot get out of its own way and I do not see any momentum building to legislatively change third party releases, the ā€œTexas Two-Stepā€ or anything else.ā€

Pilar Tarry: ā€œIf Congress gets somewhere on this topic, Iā€™ll be shocked.  And not because they donā€™t seem to get there on anything else.  Thatā€™s totally not it..(yes it is).ā€

Rachel Albanese: ā€œI expect there will be more House hearings and more political posturing about taking action, but, particularly with this Congress, Iā€™d be surprised if any game-changing legislation actually gets passed.  Thatā€™s not to say there isnā€™t room for improvement on some of these issues, though. I guess Iā€™d fall somewhere on the spectrum between Senator Warren and Professors LoPucki and Levitin, on the one hand, and Andy ā€œConfessions of a Forum Shopperā€ Dieterich, on the other. The SDNY and EDVA bankruptcy courts have taken steps to ameliorate related concerns and recently entered orders requiring random assignments for mega cases filed in the districts.ā€

Damian Schaible: ā€œI have long ago given up trying to predict what Congress will do on any topic!  But venue and third-party releases are both extremely important topics and each currently works just the way it should.  Choice of venue, including based on the experience of certain courts and the predictability that this experience provides, is extremely important to companies in need of restructuring and the capital providers that support them.  And third-party releases permit deals to get done, without having to go to the lowest common denominator ā€“ the Code provides sufficient protections and the courts are good at making judgment calls in accordance with the law.  For both, to ā€œthrow the baby out with the bathwaterā€ would lead to unsatisfactory economic and practical limitations and loss.ā€

Ryan Preston Dahl: ā€œI think the focus around mass tort cases and third party releases is asking at the wrong question.  The real question is why have bankruptcy courts become the venue to deal with what are truly profound issues that can and do go well beyond the ā€˜traditionalā€™ restructuring context?  Itā€™s also worth asking why there are so many soundbites from Congress around ā€˜bankruptcy reformā€™ and so little action taken on the underlying causes. In my own view, bankruptcy courts are dealing with fundamental questions of public health and safety (like Purdue) or the profoundly difficult case of something like Boy Scouts because the other two branches of government have simply failed to do soā€”for whatever reason.ā€

Brian Resnick: ā€œIā€™ve long since stopped guessing what Congress will actually do, but clear, uniform nationwide legislation describing strict requirements for nonconsensual nondebtor releases would be the best way forward.  There are situations where nondebtor releases are not just critical to a successful bankruptcy and a major source of value to bankruptcy creditors, but the most effective way to maximizing recoveries to creditors of nondebtors too.  Congress should consider building in safeguards to prevent abuseā€”like approval by a super-majority of claimants, specific findings that the releases are truly necessary to the reorganization, financial disclosure by released nondebtors, and court findings of fairness.  That type of nuanced law that limits releases to appropriate situations would preserve valuable flexibility and even encourage value-maximizing negotiations.  In contrast, a blunt prohibition on any releases in all cases just encourages undemocratic holdup by minorities of claimants, less room for negotiation, and ultimately smaller creditor recoveries. 

Venue reform feels like a political overkill for a problem thatā€™s largely already been solved, if it ever existed. In recent years many of the largest cases have been filed in numerous jurisdictions outside of New York and Delaware. Abuses are few to start with, and when they exist, courts do not hesitate to use the existing statutory framework to transfer cases when they determine that venue was initially chosen in an improper manner or that the initial forum is unduly inconvenient for the relevant parties. Both the Southern District of New York and the Eastern District of Virginia have eliminated the assignment procedures that sparked much of the backlash by removing the ability to choose one or a few specific Judges, and other jurisdictions may follow. Ultimately, the system works best when debtors select an appropriate jurisdiction that will maximize the efficiency of the case and creditor recoveries.  Also, while it sounds simple to just require a company to file where it is located, experience with COMI manipulation in international insolvencies shows just how tighter venue rules can introduce new gamesmanship and litigation, especially in an age of large multinational companies, where operations, assets and employees are often spread across different geographies.ā€

David Meyer: ā€œThe beauty of the American free enterprise system is the adaptation and creativity to find solutions to seemingly intractable problems.  We think large and complex chapter 11 cases are generally best served by judges who routinely deal with such cases and provide a level of efficiency and predictability to all parties involved and this generally maximizes stakeholder recovery.  Likewise, third party releases (and particularly non-consensual third party releases) have developed as a way to address mass tort liabilities in a way that can deliver substantial value to victims far quicker than years of drawn out litigation in trial-courts around the country.  Perhaps neither is perfect in their current form, but wholesale prohibition through legislation doesnā€™t strike us as the right solution either.  It falls on all restructuring professionals to develop and nurture the best features of the current system, while working to educate lawmakers on the opportunities and challenges.ā€

šŸŽApple is Really Sticking it to Facebook, Snap, and MorešŸŽ

Who wouldā€™ve guessed that a company as large and pervasive as Apple Inc. ($AAPL) could affect so many other companies whenever it takes action. šŸ¤·ā€ā™€ļø

Weā€™ve talked about Appleā€™s new iOS feature called ā€œApp Tracking Transparencyā€ in the past (herehere and here), highlighting how it was going to complicate things for Facebook Inc. ($FB) and, in turn, all of the small and medium-size businesses that rely on the social media platform for customer acquisition.

And indeed it has complicated things.

Recently a SF-based company called Moloco Inc. ā€” an adtech company that strives to empower mobile businesses to thrive by turning data into ad performance ā€” released a report thatā€¦

To read the rest of this you must be a paying subscriber. You can do that HERE.

šŸ”„Johnson & Johnson Doesnā€™t Get a Southern Welcome in Bankruptcy CourtšŸ”„


Last week
we listed ā€œTalc Claimantsā€ in our ā€œLosersā€ section since Johnson & Johnson Inc. ($JNJ) had gone ahead with its cynical maneuver to dump its talc liabilities in bankruptcy court while leaving the rest of the enterprise a presumed beneficiary of the automatic stay. Supporting the view that the automatic stay would apply not just to the bankrupt entity, LTL Management, but also to non-debtor JNJ, generally, is the choice of forum, a bankruptcy court in North Carolina, which falls under the Fourth Circuit. Weā€™ll spare you a lot of boring legal jabber, but thereā€™s precedent in the Fourth Circuit forā€¦

To read the rest of this you must be a paying subscriber. You can do that HERE.

šŸ’„They're Real and They're SPACtacular. Part II.šŸ’„

According to SPAC Research, there were 248 SPAC IPOs in 2020 totaling $83.4b in proceeds. While it may seem that SPACs arenā€™t as much of a thing in 2021 ā€“ President Trumpā€™s new media company notwithstanding ā€“ SPAC issuance is hotter than ever (even if PIPE financing may not be). 489 SPACs have IPOā€™d already in 2021, raising $136.7b.

Not to state the obvious here, but there are an army of vehicles out there with a boat load of money chasing deals. 608 vehicles to be exact. 608 SPACs are ā€œactive,ā€ meaning theyā€™re either pre-deal or ā€œlive deal,ā€ which means the de-SPAC merger hasnā€™t happened yet. šŸ¤Æ

A. How Are ā€œDistressed SPACsā€ Doing?

While it may seem like 607 of those 608 SPACs are what weā€™ve dubbed ā€œdistressed SPACsā€ ā€” i.e., SPACs that purport to be focused on identifying and completing a business combination with companies emerging from a reorganization or distressed situation ā€” theyā€™re not quite THAT ubiquitous.

Which is not to say that this isnā€™t a busy time for those vehicles. This week the BowX Acquisition transaction with WeWork Inc. ($WE) reached its logical conclusion with WE finally hitting the public markets. Even though itā€™s not a tech company that just merged with a SPAC targeting a tech company, investors seemed to overcome the cognitive dissonance:

To read the rest of this, you must be a paid subscriber. You can do that HERE.

āš”ļøUpdate 3: The China Evergrande Groupāš”ļø


The China Evergrande Group
 drama has been solid fodder for capital markets over the past several weeks. You can see our previous coverage here:

Its moves this week are somewhat emblematic of the restructuring world these days: a seemingly hopelessly distressed player that was garnering a lot of distressed investor and bankruptcy professional interest conjured up money out of nowhere to avoid its imminent day of reckoning. Indeed, a month ago, The Evergrande Group failed to pay multiple interest payments across multiple issuances, triggering the 30-day clock towards potential default scenarios. To compound matters, the company (and the Chinese government) went quiet for a very long time, providing no guidance whatsoever as to whether or how it would deal with millions upon millions of payments. Well, this week, the group avoided an immediate default by

To read the rest of this you must be a paying subscriber. You can do so HERE.

šŸ”„It's Interest Payment Day for Evergrande LOLšŸ”„

Despite Mr. Kopitsā€™ concern, the market seems to have moved on from the short-lived shock that was China Evergrande Group to even more depressing (domestic) crises such as the debt limit, infrastructure, and inflation. Despite ghosting its foreign bondholders and triggering a 30-day grace period, the company is acting as if its business as usual. Should a bit of a financial crisis thwart plans to build one of the worldā€™s largest soccer stadiums, for instance?

 Of course not.

Make no mistake: this sh*t is still ugly. Note some of the stories out on the subject this week:

  • There are signs of intra-Chinese contagion. Another major Chinese developer, Sunac China Holdingssaw its capital structure get napalmed this week. Per the WSJ, ā€œIts U.S.-dollar-denominated bonds also retreated, with 7% bonds due in July 2025 quoted at about 81 cents on the dollar by late afternoon Monday in Hong Kong, according to Tradeweb. This debt was quoted above 98 cents on the dollar at the start of the month, and as recently as July Sunac was able to raise $500 million of new debt funding from bond investors.ā€ šŸ˜¬

  • Back here at home, the Federal Reserve is, to be safe, questioning big US banks about their exposure to Evergrande. Similarly, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Securities and Exchange Commission have reportedly been probing banks to determine whether there is any and to what degree there is any risk.

  • We recall seeing a funny skit years and years back about the construction workers toiling away while building the second Death Star and how crappy it must have been for them to be collateral damage in the Rebellionā€™s war against the Empire. Thereā€™s a similar dynamic here at play in Evergrande ā€” though hardly anyone is laughing. While the Chinese government purportedly attempts to shift projects away from one developer to another so as to salvage the entire property market and rescue depositors from a catastrophic loss, it's unclear what will happen to the unpaid bills of those working those jobs. Here is a Reuters article about the owner of a cleaning business owned $3.1mm by Evergrande. His company employs 100 people and uses 700-800 contractors to clean apartments before they hit the market. To pay off his own debts and wages, the poor guy had to sell off his Porsche Cayenne and put his apartment on the market. We imagine stories like these are pervasive across China.

  • This sh*t about shadow banking ā€œtrustsā€ is bananas. Much like in the US, financing is potentially available from shadow banking trusts when regular-way banks arenā€™t an option. The trust industry in China is $3t large. Apparently tens of thousands of Chinese households provided financing to Evergrande by way of these trusts and ā€” āš”ļøsurprise!āš”ļøā€” Evergrande hasnā€™t made payments on the funds provided by these trusts. This is the companyā€™s single biggest source of debt, people. This is insane. Apparently now the trusts themselves are going out of pocket to finance investor payments. How long will they be able to do so? The numbers are staggering. Per Bloomberg, ā€œThe clock is ticking for Evergrande to make these investors whole. The cash-strapped firm faces repayments in the fourth quarter on $1.8 billion of high-yield products sold through trusts to wealthy clients and institutions. Another $4 billion is due next year, according to data provider Use Trust.ā€ YIKES. This is not good: ā€œEvergrandeā€™s dependence on trusts and other asset management products began growing after banks were directed to cut back on their lending to the property sector. By the end of 2019, Evergrande had done business with most of the 68 trust companies in China, which accounted for 41% of its total financing, based on the last borrowing disclosure.ā€ But the trusts were completely devoid of risk protocols; they began reducing their exposure in the first half of ā€˜21, decreasing loans by 17%. Remember those stories about Evergrandeā€™s wealth management products? Well once the shadow banking trusts decided that Evergrande was a deadbeat and reduced funding, Evergrande just went out with their own products to their employees, acting like predatory d*ckwads with no regard for the fact that they might be ruining the life savings of many an unsuspecting loyal employee. This story just gets worse and worse as more details come out.

  • China Evergrande New Energy Vehicle Group issued the equivalent of a going concern warning. HAHAHAHAHA. NO FRIKKEN SH*T. Just so you understand the magnitude of this absolute dumpster fire of a sh*tshow, a mere five months ago this thing had a market cap of $84b which makes it valued more than Ford Motor Co. ($F) ā€” despite never producing a working frikken automobile!! You canā€™t make this stuff up.

  • Evergrande has another interest payment due today on its 9.5% ā€˜24 dollar-denominated bond. Oh. My. Whatever may happen with that? šŸ¤” šŸ˜‚

In closing, here is an intentionally provocative piece by Niall Ferguson which, in a nutshell, says that China is f*cked and therefore overrated. If so, itā€™s hard, given the interconnected nature of the global economy, to imagine a scenario where this all goes south in China and remains contained.

But employing logic hasnā€™t been the most fruitful way to make money for years. So šŸ¤·ā€ā™€ļø.

ā˜ ļøJudge Isgur Doesn't Dig the DeathTrapā˜ ļø

Texas Judge Signals a Potentially Worse Outcome for $WPG Common

Screen Shot 2021-07-15 at 11.41.02 AM.png

Maybe, just not the way this ā¬†ļø schmo meansā€¦.

For those of you who are new to us, Washington Prime Group Inc. ($WPG) is an owner, developer and manager of retail real estate, including enclosed and open air malls. Set up as a real estate investment trust (ā€œREITā€), the companyā€™s portfolio includes 102 shopping centers across the US, totaling 52mm square feet. You can find a whole bunch of previous coverage on it hereā€¦

ā€¦but the general upshot is that even pre-COVID-19, this sucker was struggling. Ultimately the pandemic was the icing on the cake and, well, here we are talking about a chapter 11 bankruptcy case.

The bankruptcy case is predicated upon an equitization transaction pursuant to which the WPG debtors will equitize a slug of unsecured notes and hand the holders of that debt the keys to the kingdom in the form of equity in the post-bankruptcy reorganized WPG entity to its pre-petition lender and plan sponsor, SVP Global. That said, the WPG debtors leave the door slightly ajar for a buyer to come in a la Hertz and make a play for the company. As of now, there hasnā€™t been a whole lot of noise about someone actually coming in and doing so. And so the WPG debtors are moving forward in an effort to expeditiously exit chapter 11 and focus on the future. Of course, to exit chapter 11, the WPG debtors will need to send out a disclosure statement and solicit votes on their proposed plan of reorganization and, thereafter, get bankruptcy court approval of the process and result.

On Monday, July 12, 2021, the Washington Prime Group Inc. ($WPG) debtors held a status conference and conditional disclosure statement approval hearing before Judge Isgur in the Southern District of Texas and itā€™s probably fair to say that it didnā€™t go the way the debtors had anticipated. Weā€™re not sure they were expecting to hear phrases like ā€œnon-confirmable plan,ā€ ā€œunduly coerced,ā€ and ā€œreally hard call coming up.ā€ Yet they did.

Source: GIPHY

Source: GIPHY

Without getting too into the weeds of the bankruptcy code, suffice it to say that most observers of bankruptcy situations are familiar with the ā€œabsolute priority ruleā€ which spells out whether and how creditors are entitled to recoveries from a debtorā€™s estate. It is this provision in the bankruptcy code ā€” šŸ™„ fine, weā€™ll cite it ā€¦ section 1129(b)(2)šŸ™„ ā€” that requires that claims of a senior class of creditors be paid in full before any junior class of creditors may receive or retain any property in satisfaction of its claims. More plainly, secured creditors must get paid in full before unsecured creditors get paid a dime and so forth and so on down the capital structure such that unsecured creditors ought to get paid in full before stockholders get a penny. Similarly, preferred stockholders are senior in line to common stockholders.

And thatā€™s where the rubber meets the road because usually ā€” and we emphasize usually ā€” stockholders donā€™t get f*ck all in bankruptcy. Recently, however, they have. And now ā€œThe Hertz Effectā€ looms large over other pandemic-era bankruptcies because, as the WPG debtors acknowledged out of the gate, it is awfully hard to value some of these businesses in light of potentially long-lasting pandemic-induced effects. The over-arching question here is: does WPG have equity value? And, if not, should equity be getting any sort of recovery whatsoever?

On the first question, the WPG debtors are clearly proceeding as if they donā€™t think so. The WPG debtors gave absolute no indication that any White Knight was close to galloping into bankruptcy court with a higher or better offer that takes out SVP Global and allows for value to flow through the capital structure.

Recognizing all of these factors and in a commendable attempt to avoid a big fight down the road, the WPG debtors here conjured up a scheme whereby both preferred and common shareholders are eligible for a recovery anyway ā€” a ā€œgiftā€ of sorts, from the senior impaired consenting class. That eligibility, however, is contingent upon a multi-level ā€œdeath trapā€ provision ā€” a blatant quid pro quo where the prefs and common will only get something if they go along with SVP Global, the debtors, and the proposed equitization transaction by voting ā€œyesā€ on the plan of reorganization.

Source: Primo GIF

Source: Primo GIF

A preferred shareholder took issue with this coercive tactic this week and found a sympathetic ear in Judge Isgur. Here are the scenarios at issue:

  • The preferred shareholders vote no on the plan. In this case, both the preferred shareholder class (Class 10) and the common shareholder class (Class 11) get bupkis. It doesnā€™t matter what the common do in that scenario.

  • If, however, the preferred shareholders vote yes on the plan and the common vote note no, the preferred will get either $40mm in cash or approximately 6% equity (subject to other caveats and dilution mechanisms).

  • If the preferred shareholders vote yes on the plan AND the common vote yes, the two classes will split the proposed ā€œgiftā€ recovery and each get $20mm in cash or approximately 3% equity.

Itā€™s that last bit that concerned Judge Isgur. Notwithstanding the WPG debtorsā€™ argument that anything either of these classes get is a ā€œgiftā€ in the equitization scenario, he suggested that the bankruptcy code may nevertheless preclude the last option because it fails to take into account the preferred shareholdersā€™ liquidation preference over and above common equity. As he put it: the prefs either vote no and get nothing (lose) or vote yes and forfeit their liquidation preference and provide common with some sort of return (lose again). He indicated difficulty squaring that with Bankruptcy Code section 1129(b)(2)(C)(i) which, he argued, protects the liquidation preference before common is entitled to anything. The question then becomes: does that apply to a gift? This is where that ā€œreally hard callā€ statement comes in.

All of which begs the question: what does this mean for WPG common stockholders? Well, it ainā€™t good. Any WPG common shareholder who was of the view that there was a strong chance that theyā€™d see some recovery may want to pay closer attention. It was clear that, as we initially took ā€œpen to paperā€ here after market close on July 12, this already-ugly-AF chart may get a bit uglier if this issue doesnā€™t get sorted out (PETITION Note: even without this latest controversy, the stock appeared to be priced generously for some inexplicable reason. Markets be like šŸ¤·ā€ā™€ļø.).

Not that the memers comprehended that:

On July 13, the market got a bit wiser and the stock fell ~9%:

Interestingly, Judge Isgur ā€” typically a champion for the little guy ā€” insisted that the debtors file a revised disclosure statement that expressly acknowledges the possibility of a judicial finding that the proposed death trap violates the bankruptcy code. With that new language, he conditionally approved the disclosure statement. Ironically, his issue here, though, has the affect of screwing over the little guy, i.e., the common shareholders, and potentially precluding them from obtaining any recovery in the case. So, thereā€™s that.

And so now weā€™re headed for a fairly vicious game of chicken going into a confirmation hearing. First, it goes without saying that the case is potentially setting up for a pretty rigorous valuation fight ā€” especially if shareholders get organized (PETITION Note: the Office of the United States Trustee is currently soliciting interest in a committee and it sounds like thereā€™s interest). Beyond that, the Judge showed an activist bent here, sparked in part by a preferred shareholder complaining about recovery going to common. Of course, thereā€™s a beggars canā€™t be choosers element to this in that the WPG debtors could just decide that, given a valuation fight is on tap anyway, it may just make sense to pull a Lucy and rip that death trap option and any recovery right out from under all shareholders. After all, if thereā€™s gonna be war anyway, why bother with dubious gestures for peace?

šŸ’„It's Over: Hertz is Already Deal of the YearšŸ’„

āš”ļøUpdate: Hertz Global Holdings Inc., LOL.āš”ļø

It all comes back to Hertz Global Holdings Inc. ($HTZGQ), the unofficial poster child for COVID-19 era markets.

Letā€™s recap the bona fides:

The company filed for bankruptcy in May 2020 after the pandemic sparked governments around the world to shut down air travel. No business trips and vacations quickly destroyed the rental car market as revenue fell off a cliff. The precipitous decline in sales triggered a margin call on debt backing the Hertz Debtorsā€™ car fleet ā€” a margin call that they could not satisfy. In other words, the chapter 11 bankruptcy filing was in no way tied to near-term structural business reasons that merely got uber-accelerated (word choice purposeful) by the pandemic (like many other bankruptcy filings at the time); it was as pure a COVID-19 filing as they came at the time.

The entire capital structure capitulated but a month later the stock mysteriously rose to over $6/share. The markets were incredulous and lots of really smart people using decades of historical precedent cast shade on Robinhood bros and memers for being dumb enough to buy shares in a bankrupt company with loans trading at levels (30 cents) that reflected significant impairment higher up in the capital structure. In other words, Hertz became sort of like an analog meme stock before more-digitally oriented meme stocks (e.g., GameStop Inc.) became a thing.

Needing additional funding, the Hertz Debtors sought to capitalize on the good fortune conferred upon them by WallStreetBets and partake in an at-the-market equity offering, a strategy viewed by most as a cynical maneuver to take advantage of willing fools. This sent the Twittersphere into a tizzy but ultimately (and predictably) got approved by the Delaware Bankruptcy Court. Shortly thereafter, however, the SEC put the kibosh on this plan which probably had something to do with the Hertz Debtors acknowledging that they were knowingly and intentionally feeding pigs what they reasonably thought to be sh*t. The Hertz Debtors did squeak out a small allocation of shares, though (at just over $2/share).

Hertz then flooded the market with used cars as it sought to raise cash in a depressed travel environment; from June 1, 2020 through December 31, 2020, Hertz disposed of more than 199,000 vehicles.

During that time, there was a torrent of car purchases as people were wary of air travel. Meanwhile, auto OEMs had to curtail production ā€” first because of COVID-19 and then due to semiconductor shortages (PETITION Note: production cuts of new cars now total a reported 1.2mm vehicles). Large customers like Hertz also ceased volume orders. Used car prices quickly recovered. As just one way of illustrating the ā€œtorrentā€ point, take a look at Carvana Coā€™s ($CVNA) revenue:

Fast forward to a miraculous economic recovery (Jay POW-ell!) and as borne out by Avis Budget Group Inc. ($CAR), car rentals came back. Consequently, the Hertz Debtors decided to put the pedal to the metal and get the hell out of bankruptcy. Who knew whether this would all last? Better to take advantage of this momentum now, the thinking went.

You know about the back-and-forth by this point. First there were one group of plan sponsors (Knighthead Capital Management LLC and Certares Opportunities LLC) and then there was a ā€œpivotā€ (a group consisting of Centerbridge Partners L.P.Warburg Pincus LLCDundon Capital Partners LLC and an ad hoc group of the Hertz Debtorsā€™ unsecured noteholders) and then another ā€œpivotā€ and then another ā€œpivotā€ and then a 36-hour auction and, ultimately, the initial sponsors, supported by reinforcements (Apollo Management Group), ended up back on top. Each time the outlook for general unsecured creditors and, more importantly, shareholders improved. Some noteholders absolutely crushed it.

Now ā€” NOW! ā€” shareholders are the big winners too! The mainstream media tripped all over itself to declare the memers the victors and the shadecasters as pessimistic boomers who didnā€™t understand the recovery potential (though some also pointed out the luck involved). And thereā€™s probably some truth to the latter though we highly doubt that 99% of the former were running complex recovery analyses enough to know whether the equity had value.

But some well-known public market money managers were! And they combined with Knighthead and Certares to push through with the winning bid. The media celebrated $8 a share.

But is it really $8 a share? Or even ā€œnear $8/shr?ā€ Bloombergā€™s Matt Levine pays this point short shrift though at least, to his credit, he does note that thereā€™s more there there:

ā€œThat $8 number isnā€™t quite real ā€” you have to decide how much you value the warrants and reorganized equity ā€” but certainly the equity is getting something. And if you believe, or partly believe, the $8 post-bankruptcy valuation, then $6.25 a year ago was a bargain. If you bought Hertz stock at $6.25 last June, that was a reasonable bet. Not necessarily a great bet ā€” youā€™re down about 20% over the last year, and of course youā€™d have been better off buying Dogecoin ā€” but a reasonable one, and if a few more things break your way youā€™ll have a nice little profit. And if you paid under $3 for Hertz ā€” which is where it traded for most of last June ā€” you did great.ā€

But thatā€™s the thing. The entry point matters. And the details matter. Shareholders will get (a) $239mm in cash, (b) common stock representing 3% of the shares of the reorganized Company (subject to dilution from warrants and equity issued under a new management incentive plan); and (c) 30-year warrants for 18% of the common stock of the reorganized Company (subject to dilution by a new management incentive plan) with a strike price based on a total equity value of $6.5 billion, or the opportunity, for eligible shareholders, to subscribe for shares of common stock in the $1.635 billion rights offering at Plan equity value. As if that doesnā€™t sound complicated enough, shareholders could also elect to participate in the rights offering but, kinda sorta not. Instead, they could sell their rights pursuant to an auction and receive their pro rata share of proceeds of the rights sale instead of warrants. Thoughts and prayers to the retail investor trying to figure what the bloody hell that actually means for them.

So what does it mean? It means ā€” NOT INVESTMENT ADVICE, DO YOUR OWN WORK! ā€” $1.53 in cash per share. It means, with the 3% piece, another $1 per share. So, ~$2.53 is a guaranteed recovery. Beyond that, it depends upon what the shareholder opts to do and how they might value the warrants. And on that point we say, ā€œgood luck with that.ā€ Why are we so flippant? Because this entire analysis depends on how you run your ā€” šŸ˜³gulp šŸ˜³ā€” Black-Scholes model (lol), which, among other inputs, requires an assessment of volatility (LOL). This volatility assessment could get you anywhere between $2/share to $5.50/share (LOL!!) and so going shorthand with $8/share isnā€™t exactly telling the whole story (despite making a good story). The Hertz Debtors note a volatility range of 50-65%. At its midpoint, the warrant value comes to ~$769mm or $4.92/share. Applying additional inputs might get you to $5.47/share. You could be forgiven for thinking that some Managing Director was spinning around in his chair ordering an analyst to somehow ā€œland around $8/shareā€ and then some excel monkey made some magic happen (adding an extra penny at the end to make things look more optically kosher). The bottom line is that along with entry points and details, the inputs matter too. And so there must be a whole lot of people running some B/S models this week (LOL!!!):

Screen Shot 2021-05-26 at 2.21.38 AM.png

Of course, thatā€™s a whole bunch of nuance that todayā€™s equity market doesnā€™t exactly have time for. But šŸ¤·ā€ā™€ļø.

*****

On Wednesday, Consumer Price Index data pushed the market into a swoon with CNBC coming about an inch away from this:

Headline year-over-year inflation came in around 4.2%, a somewhat misleading number since it factored in oil prices that, on a relative basis, were over $100/barrel higher than the year before.

Drilling down further into core CPI (excludes volatile food and energy) and the clear outlier is used car prices. Per the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics:

Screen Shot 2021-05-26 at 2.24.34 AM.png

In other words, while other indices also increased, used cars/trucks were the largest contributor to the CPI number that freaked everyone the hell out.

Which brings us back to Hertz. The company is out in the market trying to stock back up on cars pushing prices up in a supply-constrained auto environment. It would be the greatest irony of all time if inflation fears decimated the personal trading accounts of all of the new retail entrants into the market on the same day that they experienced a win on their Hertz stock. The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away.

Taking this a step farther, it would be amazing if the Fed felt compelled by inflation or perceived inflation to tighten monetary policy (read: raise rates) in part because Hertz vomited nearly 200,000 cars into the market and then, months later, had to go back to that market and buy its sh*t back. (PETITION Note: the inflation argument sure didnā€™t spook markets for long as momentum swung back fast and furious to the upside on Thursday and Friday. Markets today are fickle AF.).

Regardless of what happens with the Fed and inflation later, Hertz has already established itself as a founding member of a lot of special clubs all at the same time:

āœ…the pandemic-induced bankruptcy club;
āœ…the meme stock club; and
āœ…the inflation club.

Which makes us wonder: whatā€™s next for Hertz? Is it going to NFT something? Or will it announce that it plans to carry Bitcoin on balance sheet? How long until it issues new debt into the market for the sole purpose of paying Knighthead and Certares a big fat dividend?

Nothing would surprise us at this point.

šŸ”„Greensill Capital = DRAMA!šŸ”„

The Auction for Finacity Heats Up

Back on March 25, 2021, Greensill Capital Inc. (the ā€œDebtorā€) filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy in the Southern District of New York. The company is the direct subsidiary of Greensill Capital Management company (UK) Limited(ā€œGCUKā€) and the indirect subsidiary of ultimate parent, Greensill Capital Pty Limited; it is the direct parent of Finacity Corporation (which weā€™ll come back to in a moment). All together, the Greensill situation is a complete clusterf*ck ā€” as you likely know from extensive Financial Times coverage of everything Greensillā€¦

Whatever it is, the way you tell your story online can make all the difference.

ā€¦waitā€¦letā€™s take a moment to just revel in the sheer bounty of FT coverage on the matterā€¦seriously, look at that ā¬†ļø, theyā€™re cranking out a new story, like, every 9 hours on the subject!

Greensill was in the business of arranging factoring and reverse factoring programs around the world. Here is a company-provided description of the business:

The Debtor constituted Greensillā€™s US presence and sold these ā¬†ļøfinancial products to clients and investors in the Americas, with revenue therefrom flowing up the corporate org chart to GCUK.

Unfortunately for Greensill, however ā€” and, by extension, the Debtor ā€” a lot of company-wide funding arrangements went sour, triggering a domino effect that first sparked a UK administration filing, a company-wide liquidation and, by extension, the US-based bankruptcy filing. Per The Financial Times:

Greensill Capital, a SoftBank-backed company that says it is ā€œmaking finance fairerā€, has had a string of its clients default on their debts in high-profile corporate collapses and accounting scandals.

The London-based finance group, which employs former British prime minister David Cameron as an adviser, arranged funding for scandal-plagued hospital operator NMC Health and controversial ā€œrent-to-ownā€ retailer BrightHouse, which have both fallen into administration in recent weeks.

Greensill, which received $1.5bn of investment from Japanese conglomerate SoftBankā€™s Vision Fund last year, also provided financing to Agritrade, the Singaporean commodities trader that collapsed earlier this year amid accusations of fraud from its lenders.

These corporate collapses mean Greensill and a group of insurers are having to cover losses in funds managed by Credit Suisse.

Things unraveled quickly. Per Reuters:

Greensill Capital filed for insolvency on Monday after losing insurance coverage for its debt repackaging business and said in its court filing that its largest client, GFG Alliance, had started to default on its debts.

Cause ā¬†ļø. Effect ā¬‡ļø.

The Debtor is a much smaller piece of the overall Greensill puzzle: it listed 50-99 creditors, $10mm-$50mm in assets, and $50mm-$100mm in liabilities on its petition. It has no revenue and no secured debt. Prior to the leadup to bankruptcy, it had just one director, Alexander Greensill, and its top 20 list of creditors is comprised of employees. It is fully redacted though we know at least two of the names from the USTā€™s appointment of a 2-member official committee of unsecured creditors. To effectuate the filing, the Debtor added an independent director, Jill Frizzley, to its board (PETITION Note: she effectuated the filing of the petition) and hired Togut Segal & Segal LLP as legal and, after the filing, GLC Advisors & Co. LLC as investment banker. The purpose of its filing is insulate the Debtor from the general Greensill global sh*t show, minimize liabilities (PETITION Note: the Debtor filed a rejection motion on day one which encompasses both its lease in NYC, a WeWork location Chicago, and other contracts) and sell its valuable assets (read: Finacity) for the benefit of its creditors and shareholder. It secured $2mm of DIP financing from The Peter Greensill Family Trust to pursue this course.

Within days of filing, the Debtor filed a motion seeking approval of bidding procedures and approval of stalking horse protections on behalf of a stalking horse purchaser, the Katz Parties, which includes Finacityā€™s original founder and CEO. The bid is for $24mm which includes $3mm of cash, and the release of some $21+mm of earn-out payments still owed to the Katz Parties from the 2019 sale of Finacity to the Debtor. That last bit is interesting because, if ultimately successful, it will eliminate a massive general unsecured claim that dwarfs the rest of the unsecured claim pool and, consequently, will enhance general unsecured creditor recoveries. The Debtor initially sought a April 20th bid deadline with an auction on April 23 and a sale hearing on April 27. The bankruptcy court entered an order approving the procedures and stalking horse protections on April 6.

The next day the USTā€™s office appointed a three-person creditorsā€™ committee. The committee then chose Arent Fox LLP as its counsel and Cohn Reznick LLP as its financial advisor.

On April 15, the Debtor filed a notice of revised dates and deadlines relating to the sale of Finacity, making the bid deadline May 5, the auction May 7, and the sale hearing May 12. Meanwhile, the composition of the UCC kept changing: it turned over for a third time on April 19. That must have been fun for everyone.

But the fun merely followed! Things got weird. On April 30, the UCC filed a motion to extend the sale process and push the bid deadlines, auction date, and sale hearing date. They wrote:

ā€¦it has come to the Committeeā€™s attention that wrongful conduct and flaws in the sale process are chilling bidding. The Committee requests a reset of the sale timeline and remedial measures to bring bidders back to the process. Without these curative steps, the Debtorā€™s ability to maximize value will be compromised and general unsecured creditors, consisting largely of former employees, will feel the brunt of the wrongful conduct and irregularities in the sale process.

Irregularities? In a case that kicked off due to irregularities?! Stop the insanity!!

The UCC continued:

Most troubling ā€“ and the immediate cause for expedited relief ā€“ is that the Committee has learned of specific wrongful conduct by Finacity management this week alone that has tainted the sales process. At this point, the question is not whether damage has been done. The question is whether the damage can be repairedā€¦.

The UCC went on to cite (i) correspondence from a Finacity senior executive to a prospective bidder that informed said bidder that it was ā€œnot a good fit,ā€ (ii) aggressive, adversarial and. unprofessional behavior towards a second potential bidder, (iii) slow processing of NDAs to the detriment of the expedited sale process, (iv) poor messaging that appears to be ā€œartificially inflat[ing]ā€ any required entry bid, and (v) some inside baseball shenanigans ā€” including special discounts (in exchange for IP transfers) ā€” that favor the Katz Parties to the detriment of other prospective bidders (without consideration for whether the Katz Parties are subject to additional scrutiny on account of, among other things, potential preference exposure related to earn-out payments paid in conjunction with the sale). They write:

The totality of the circumstances have created an environment that is chilling bidding and positioning the Stalking Horse to re-acquire Finacity for a mere $3 million cash, despite the fact that Finacity is performing better than when the Debtor acquired it for a price tag exponentially higher less than two years ago.

The UCC proposed pushing everything to mid-June. The Debtor did not agree to those dates but they did push the bid deadline to May 10, rendering the UCCā€™s objection moot. A member of the UCC subsequently said ā€œf*ck this sh*tā€ and quit, leaving just a two-person committee. Ok, maybe it wasnā€™t that dramatic but you get the idea. This UCC has had more change than J.Lo has had long-term relationships that go nowhere.

Sh*t. Weā€™ll take this drama over that drama any day of the week.

Anyway, yesterday the Debtor filed a notice indicating that ā€œā€¦the Debtor has received more than one ā€˜Qualified Bid,ā€™ā€ and therefore pushed the auction date ā€” yet again! ā€” to May 14 with a proposed sale hearing on May 21.

Stay tuned.

šŸ”„NRA Gets Whipped in Bankruptcy CourtšŸ”„

TX Judge Hale Dismissed the NRAā€™s Bankruptcy Case

When the National Rifle Association of America and its affiliate Sea Girt LLC (lol) first filed chapter 11 bankruptcy cases in the Southern District of Texas back in January, we titled our initial coverage of it, ā€œšŸ”„NRA. LOL.šŸ”„,ā€ which ā€¦ letā€™s be honest ā€¦ basically sums things up. Because, seriously, folks, it was a f*cking stupid filing premised on a f*cking stupid affiliate spun up out of thin air for the dubious purpose of filing in Texas. Contemporaneous with the f*cking stupid filing came a f*cking stupid press release where the NRA flicked off the New York State Attorney General Letitia James, a f*cking stupid poke-the-bear tactic that she saw right through and is now primed to throw right in the NRAā€™s face. It was, as we said previously, an epic ā€œown the libsā€ moment that was ā€¦ well ā€¦ f*cking stupid. Of course, Texas Governor Greg Abbott celebrated the theatrics at the time, exhibiting f*cking stupid ignorance about bankruptcy law and the concept of ā€œbad faith filings.ā€ Yesterday, he was curiously silent on the subject. When you compound f*cking stupid with f*cking stupid you just end up with a whole lot of f*cking stupid. And since the integrity of the bankruptcy system is the flavor of the year, weā€™re not very surprised that, after some f*cking stupid testimony in court and some even more f*cking stupid leaked video of Wayne LaPierre being a stupid bad shot out of court, Judge Hale booted this f*cking stupid ploy to the curb.

Back in January we wrote:

All of this leaves us with some questions.

First, whatā€™s the deal with the affiliate debtor? Itā€™s a f*cking mockery, thatā€™s what. The entity mysteriously appeared less than two months ago and appears to be a shell with little to no assets or liabilities. Itā€™s questionable whether anyone actually works there but we suspect not. Weā€™d expect, therefore, a challenge to venue. That said, weā€™ve seen so much venue-related BS over the years (looking at you SDTX and White Plains) that ā€œvenue shoppingā€ is something thatā€™s fun to talk about in academic circles but often has no real world ramifications. Moreover, Texas ā€” judging by the Governorā€™s response ā€” seems more than happy to welcome the NRA there. Query whether the judge will be as welcoming. Will anyone care that the NRA has virtually zero pre-existing connection to the state whatsoever? Probably not. šŸ¤·ā€ā™€ļø

Indeed the action remained in Texas.

But:

Then thereā€™s the issue of ā€œgood faith.ā€

Hereā€™s where the press release is particularly fascinating. In the same breath, the NRA says it is ā€œdumping New York,ā€ ā€œthere will be no immediate changes to the NRAā€™s operations or workforce,ā€ ā€œ[t]he move [to Texas] comes at a time when the NRA is in its strongest financial condition in years,ā€ and thereā€™ll be ā€œa plan that provides for payment in full of all valid creditorsā€™ claimsā€ with the organization ā€œuphold[ing] commitments to employees, vendors, members, and other community stakeholders.ā€ Soooooo, the bankruptcy is foooooor what exactly? Oh, right. Dumping New York. They told us that. The NRA might as well blast in flashy neon lights that itā€™s operating in bad faith, filing solely to circumvent a governmental authorityā€™s power. Will it matter? Probably not. (emphasis in original)

But it did!! We were too cynical for our own good.

Yesterday in an ā€œOrder Granting Motions to Dismiss,ā€ Judge Hale noted that ā€œā€¦it has become apparent that the NRA was suffering from inadequate governance and internal controls.ā€ This goes to the heart of the NY AGā€™s effort to enforce the law against the NRA and its leadership! And if successful, the end result (and stated goal) of the NY AGā€™s efforts would be the dissolution of the NRA. And so the Court underscored:

The question the Court is faced with is whether the existential threat facing the NRA is the type of threat that the Bankruptcy Code is meant to protect against. The Court believes it is not. For the reasons stated herein, the Court finds there is cause to dismiss this bankruptcy case as not having been filed in good faith both because it was filed to gain an unfair litigation advantage and because it was filed to avoid a state regulatory scheme. The Court further finds the appointment of a trustee or examiner would, at this time, not be in the best interests of creditors and the estate.

šŸ’„BOOM!šŸ’„

The NRA apparently offered testimony that was all over the place. They offered a variety of reasons for the bankruptcy filing ā€” from (a) controlling the cost of ongoing litigation (not just the NY AG action) to (b) dealing with banking and insurance issues to (c) effectuating a move from Texas to New York to (d) streamlining operations with the benefit of the bankruptcy ā€œbreathing spell.ā€ Judge Hale didnā€™t bite. Why not? So what were the reasons the Court relied upon?

First, it appears that Mr. LaPierre unilaterally decided to file for bankruptcy without the knowledge of the rest of management or the board of directors. Second, testifying witnesses were in consensus that ā€œthe NRA is in its strongest financial condition in years and intends to pay creditors all allowed claims in full.ā€ The NRAā€™s former CFO and current acting CFO testified that the NRA is capitalized enough to fund all litigation. Moreover, the NRAā€™s general counsel apparently failed to establish that there was any immediate threat of dissolution or other litigation which might reasonably place a financial strain on the company. There was also no near-term existential threat: Mr. LaPierre testified that the NRA had not been put on notice that the NY AG intended to seek a receiver. All of which, in the aggregate, indicated that there was no imminent financial distress and only speculative near-term legal risk that my impact the financials. Hereā€™s some testimony taken from the Order:

Whatever it is, the way you tell your story online can make all the difference.

Thatā€™s pretty damn clear. And so the Judge concluded:

The evidence does not support a finding that the purpose of the NRAā€™s bankruptcy filing was to reduce operating costs, to address burdensome executory contracts and unexpired leases, to modernize the NRAā€™s charter and organization structure, or to obtain a breathing spell. While some of these could be added benefits of going through a bankruptcy process, they do not appear to have been significant considerations for the NRA.

Rather:

Based on the statements of counsel and the evidence in the record, the Court finds that the primary purpose of the bankruptcy filing was to avoid potential dissolution in the NYAG Enforcement Action.

So then, thanks to late 20th century case law that stands for the proposition that ā€œa Chapter 11 petition is not filed in good faith unless it serves a valid bankruptcy purpose,ā€ Judge Hale had to consider whether there was such a valid bankruptcy purpose, keeping in mind whether ā€œthe petition [was] filed merely to obtain a tactical litigation advantage.ā€ Thanks to Mr. LaPierre, it wasnā€™t hard to conclude that it was.

Interestingly, Judge Hale highlights the high burden the NY AG must fulfill to achieve the dissolution of the NRA. A successful pursuit by the NY AG is no fait accompli (though this filing may have actually made the case easier!). The court noted:

A dissolution that requires this showing is not the type of dissolution that the Bankruptcy Code is meant to protect against. The Court is not in any way saying it believes the NYAG can or cannot make the required showing to obtain dissolution of the NRA, but the Court is saying that the Bankruptcy Code does not provide sanctuary from this kind of a threat.

And continued:

For this reason, the Court believes the NRAā€™s purpose in filing bankruptcy is less like a traditional bankruptcy case in which a debtor is faced with financial difficulties or a judgment that it cannot satisfy and more like cases in which courts have found bankruptcy was filed to gain an unfair advantage in litigation or to avoid a regulatory scheme. The purpose of this bankruptcy filing may not have been to end the NYAG Enforcement Action immediately, but it was to deprive the NYAG of the remedy of dissolution, which is a distinct litigation advantage. This differs materially from the prescribed parallel proceedings structure for regulatory actions where regulators can obtain monetary judgments in one forum and then are required to have any claims treated through a bankruptcy process in that it is the NRAā€™s goal to avoid dissolution and subvert the remedy provided for under New York law entirely through this Chapter 11 case. The Court does not know what specific mechanism the NRA plans to use, but its intention is clearly to ā€œtake dissolution off the table.ā€

The NY AG wasted no time taking a victory lap:

Big picture? Lots of people have been messing with the bankruptcy process lately, doing all kinds of f*cking stupid stuff.

The ā€œprocessā€ is finally fighting back.

āš”ļø"Love Really Hertz Without You" - Billy Oceanāš”ļø

When we last discussed Hertz Global Holdings Inc. ($HTZGQ) ten days ago, the Hertz debtors were trying to push forward with approval of their proposed (i) disclosure statement and (ii) break-up fee and expense reimbursement accommodations for their ā€œPE Sponsors,ā€ Centerbridge Partners LPWarburg Pincus LLC and Dundon Capital Partners LLC. But much like the ā€œpesky kidsā€ in Scooby-Doo, the debtorsā€™ initial plan sponsors, Knighthead Capital Management LLC and Certares Management LLC, just had to ā€” with the help of Apollo Global Management Inc. and active equityholders Glenview Capital Management LLC and Hein Park Capital Management LP ā€” step in and f*ck everything up. At the 11th hour ā€” on April 15, 2021, the night before a hearing to consider the above-noted relief ā€” they came forward with an alternative proposal that threw the Hertz debtorsā€™ plans for that hearing way off the tracks. And they found a sympathetic ear.

Judge Walrath was willing to play ball. Though she never heard the details of the new proposal (in fact specifically advising all parties not to delve into them), she agreed to kick the hearing ā€” despite opposition from the Hertz debtorsā€™ counsel ā€” to April 21, 2021, to allow the Hertz debtors an earnest opportunity to weigh the two proposals against one another and ascertain whether the relief requested made sense under the new circumstances.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is the funny thing about bankruptcy. There are federal rules of bankruptcy; there are local rules of bankruptcy; there are judicial guidelines; there are Office of the United States Trustee guidelines; there are case procedures orders, etc. The process is chock full of rules and procedures. Sh*t. Putting aside that old federalism thing, the highest and best use case for a ā€œlocal counselā€ is simply having a safeguard against tripping up local jurisdictional rules. In other words, people make a lot of money just dancing around all these frikken rules.

And, yet, despite all of that ā€” ALL ā€¦ OF ā€¦ THAT ā€” if someone marches into a bankruptcy court with a massive trunk overflowing with green paper thatā€™s backed by the full faith and credit of the United States of America, well, sh*t, all of those rules and procedures will fly out the window quicker than you can say ā€œcapitalism!ā€ Ultimately, a debtor has an obligation ā€” a fiduciary duty ā€” to maximize value for the estate. Period.

And so thatā€™s what the Hertz debtors did. In those five days, the Knighthead-Initial-Plan-Sponsor group further revised their proposal, compelling the boards of the Hertz debtors to conclude that they were for real. Indeed, they initially concluded, in furtherance of their requisite fiduciary duties, that the new proposal, maaaaaay very well constitute a superior offer.

šŸ’Diamond Sports Leads Distressed Lists (Long Cord Cutting)šŸ’

Anyone with college-age kids whoā€™ve been stuck at home over various parts of the pandemic neednā€™t review Nielsenā€™s latest Total Audience Report to know that TV-watching among that demographic is way down. Per Sportico:

In the third quarter of 2020, the 18-34 crowd averaged just 452 minutes of live TV viewing per week, which works out to about an hour and five minutes per day.

That marks a 23% drop compared to the year-ago period, when Millennials and their younger siblings at the far end of the Gen Z range averaged 583 minutes of TV consumption per week, and a 34% fall-off versus the third quarter of 2018 (684 minutes).

Thatā€™s a brutal drop off with wide-ranging implications but the bad news doesnā€™t stop there. Dive further into the time line and things look ugly AF:

Compared to the same three-month period five years ago, the time adults 18-34 spent in front of the tube last summer was down 77%, which means that young adults are now watching nearly 1,500 fewer minutes of TV than they did in 2015. In other words, the members of the population who are meant to succeed the people now aging out of the all-important 18-49 demo have slashed their TV consumption by what amounts to more than one entire day (24.9 hours.)

The conventional wisdom use to be that sports were immune to these dire trends. Well, maybe not:

That young adults are cutting way back on their use of live TV is a matter of considerable vexation for the sports world, which is scrambling to reach younger viewers across an atomized digital-media landscape.

Indeed recent data on consumer sentiment suggests many TV subscribers ā€” including sports fans ā€” are lost for good.

Which brings us to Diamond Sports Groupā€¦.

TO READ MORE OF THIS ARTICLE, YOU MUST BE A PAYING SUBSCRIBER.

šŸ¤‘An "Active Auction" Breaks Out for HertzšŸ¤‘

Early Friday morning, The Wall Street Journal broke news* that the sponsors of Hertz Global Holdings Inc.ā€™s ($HTZGQ) initial plan of reorganization ā€” Knighthead Capital Management LLC and Certares Management LLC ā€” had re-emerged with a fresh proposal for the company that would value the company at $6.2b, creating a dramatic delta between their valuation and the $5.3b valuation upon which the Hertz debtors had predicated their previous agreement with selected plan sponsors, Centerbridge Partners LPWarburg Pincus LLC and Dundon Capital Partners LLC (the ā€œPE Sponsorsā€). Adding credence to the proposal was the fact that it was backed by $2.5b in preferred equity financing from Apollo Global Management Inc. and joined by the ad hoc committee of equityholders led by Glenview Capital Management LLC and Hein Park Capital Management LP.

TO READ MORE OF THIS ARTICLE, YOU MUST BE A PAYING SUBSCRIBER.

āš¾ļøAre "Distressed SPACs" Still a Thing?āš¾ļø

Our coverage of Mudrick Capital LPā€™s second SPAC began with a detailed analysis of his first, Hycroft Mining ($HYMC).

TLDR: Mudrickā€™s first SPAC engineered a path forward for one of his long-held illiquid holdings in the 11th hour before the fund would have needed to return cash to investors. We tuned into a YouTube interview with Mudrickā€™s CIO, Jason Mudrick, where he speculated about a second SPAC vehicle, but insisted that his focus was ā€œon making Mudrick Capital Acquisition I a successā€ before launching SPAC II.

Reasonable people can disagree on the definition of ā€œsuccess.ā€ Success could be simply launching a SPAC in the first place. Or it could be successfully de-SPACā€™ing into a viable merger candidate. Or it could be the post-merger entity shooting to the moon a la Draftkings Inc. ($DKNG). Pick your barometer but suffice it to say that many people wouldnā€™t choose ā€œdown 60% post-IPOā€ topped with ā€œweak FY 2021 guidanceā€ as their winning metric.

HYMC.png

But past performance is not indicative of future performance. Nor is one investment enough to taint what otherwise appears to be an impressive investing run. And so surely Mudrick wasnā€™t going to let the absolute dumpster fire that is HYMC get in the way of launching SPAC II and then, in impressive short order, making a big announcement.

On April 6, 2021Mudrick Capital Acquisition Corporation II announced the purchase of The Topps Company, Inc. Topps is a NY-based manufacturer of collectibles, chewing gum, and candy. A slide from the merger presentation breaks down the companyā€™s mix of offerings:

TOPPS - Revenue Breakdown.JPG

A. Ownership Structure

Founded originally in 1938, Topps was acquired in October 2007 by The Tornante Company LLC (run by former Disney CEO Michael Eisner) and Madison Dearborn Partners, LLC for $385mm. The NYTimes stated that the original Tornante x MDP collab was ā€œa bet on a brand that elicits an ā€œemotional connectionā€ as strong as Disneyā€¦ā€ Toppsā€™ content partners certainly fit that strategy; the companyā€™s roster includes organizations and brands such as MLBUEFAThe Formula One Group ($FWONA)Star WarsMarvel, and World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. ($WWE). Tornante Chairman Michael Eisnerā€™s connections were no doubt invaluable in helping Topps make inroads. Disney properties include Star Wars and Marvel, and Tornante owns an equity stake in Portsmouth Football Club.

Pro forma for the Mudrick acquisition, Tornante retains 36% equity ownership in Topps. MDP and the existing management team will own 8%. Mudrick Capital will own 7% of the ā€œFounder Shares,ā€ while SPAC investors will own 28%. Filling out the cap stack is a $250mm PIPE offering, which accounts for 21% of the equity. Per the press release, the PIPE is led by Mudrick and names GAMCO Investors, Inc. and Wells Capital Management as co-investors. Based on merger presentation financials, Mudrick and friends are recapitalizing Topps at a 12.5x Pro Forma 2021 Adj. EBITDA multiple.

TOPPS - S&U.JPG

B. Segment Breakdown

Physical Sports & Entertainment is Toppsā€™ largest segment. At $314mm of 2020 revenue, the segment makes up 55% of Toppsā€™ total full year revenue. The business focuses on trading cards, stickers and ā€œcurated experiencesā€ such as experiential events in partnership with UEFA Champions League.

Topps - Physical Sports & Entertainment.png

In FY 2020, the Physical S&E segment grew 50% YoY. Toppsā€™ estimates the segment will hit $398mm and $454mm in revenue for FY21 and FY22, growing 27% and 14% respectively. Topps has been able to quickly capitalize on the hot consumer flavor of the month, whether it was Star Wars: The Mandalorian, the WWE, Bundesliga, or Godzilla, aligning with the most recent film release. Additionally, Topps has driven margin growth through some preeetty aggressive pricing strategies. FinTwit was all over it:

Toppsā€™ Confection Segment printed $198mm of revenue in FY 2020 and was ~35% of the business. Topps calls its brands, including Bazooka Gum, RingPop, PushPop, Baby Bottle Pop, and Juicy Drop Pop, ā€œEdible Entertainment.ā€ (This compilation for Baby Bottle Pop ads triggers all the early-90s nostalgia we can handle.) These brands are sold in major retail locations in the U.S. and Internationally, including 7-Eleven, Inc., BJs Wholesale Club Holdings Inc. ($BJ), Dollar Tree, Inc. ($DLTR), Kroger Co ($KR), Walmart Inc. ($WMT), Target Corporation ($TGT), Walgreens Boots Alliance Inc. ($WBA), and Carrefour S A F, REWE Group, and Tesco PLC. Topps confections are outperforming the broader confections category, and three of Toppsā€™ products are in the top 5 best-selling non-chocolate items in U.S. Retail.

Candy Confections 4.09.21.JPG

In 2020, the Confections segment was down 10% YoY, likely impacted by COVID-19: apparently the category gets some tailwinds from screaming toddlers demanding candy in the checkout aisle of the local grocery store. Damn you DoorDash Inc. ($DASH). Anyway, Topps sees that segment bouncing back 14% in FY21 before moderating to 5% in FY22.

C. Steak & Sizzle

Toppsā€™ Digital Sports & Entertainment and Gift Cards together make up 10% of Toppsā€™ total revenue. Weā€™ve previously shared our thoughts on gift cards; we find it fascinating that between 6 - 10% of prepaid gift cards are never used by the customer, resulting in ā€˜breakage incomeā€™ at 100% margin to the business. But if Toppsā€™ Physical S&E and Confections are the ā€˜steakā€™ of the investment thesis, Digital is certainly the ā€œsizzle.ā€

Digital Sports & Entertainment provides app-based, digital collectibles and games with the ability to print on-demand. This segment grew 72% YoY as Topps directly monetized the Intellectual Property of its partnerships through its mobile apps. Per the merger presentation, daily active users on Toppsā€™ apps have grown at a ~50% CAGR from January 2019 to January 2021. Per a NYTimes article, Tornante, MDP, and company management have been prioritizing this shift:

ā€œIn the years since Mr. Eisnerā€™s initial purchase, Topps has focused on a shift to digital, starting online apps for users to trade collectibles and play games. It also created ā€œTopps Now,ā€ which makes of-the-moment cards to capture a defining play or a pop culture meme. (It sold nearly 100,000 cards featuring Senator Bernie Sanders at the presidential inauguration in his mittens.) And it has moved into blockchain, too, via the craze for nonfungible tokens, or NFTs.ā€

While we have no f*cking clue whatā€™s going on with NFTs, thereā€™s no question pandemic lockdowns have fueled a resurgence across all of memorabilia. The article continues with some comments from Mr. Mudrick and Toppsā€™ current CEO Michael Brandstaedter:

ā€œThe secondhand market is particularly hot, with a Mickey Mantle card recently selling for more than $5 million. ā€œTopps probably made something like a nickel on it, 70 years ago,ā€ said Jason Mudrick, the founder of Mudrick Capital. NFT mania will allow Topps to take advantage of the secondhand market by linking collectibles to digital tokens. Topps is also growing beyond sports, like its partnerships with Marvel and ā€œStar Wars.ā€

It continues to see value in its core baseball-card business, as athletes come up from the minor leagues more quickly. ā€œThe trading card business has been growing for the last several years,ā€ Michael Brandstaedter, the chief executive of Topps, said. ā€œWhile it definitely grew through the pandemic ā€” and perhaps accelerated ā€” it did not arrive with the pandemic.ā€ (emphasis added)

Toppsā€™ foray into NFTs through its collaboration with Wax Blockchain on ā€˜Garbage Pail Kidsā€™ has been wildly successful, selling out in 27 hours with $100k+ in revenue. But the reported numbers indicate Topps derives limited value from digital today:

Topps - Revenue Stack Bar Chart.png

But that looks set to change. Perhaps quickly. It looks highly likely that Topps is going to do some exciting digital things with the likes of the Anaheim Angelsā€™ Mike Trout and Shohei Ohtani, among others; it signed both to long-term card and autograph deals that, while the details are not entirely clear, likely includes some sort of digital element to it (at least with Trout given the timing).

Topps is innovating in real time. The Verge reported on Major League Baseballā€™s latest initiative earlier this week:

Major League Baseball has announced its latest move to cash in on the NFT craze: official blockchain-based versions of classic Topps baseball cards. Topps is selling the new NFT baseball cards through the WAX blockchain, which the company has used for its earliest blockchain-based collectibles.

The first ā€œSeries 1ā€ cards will be sold starting on April 20th, with 50,000 standard packs (containing six cards for $5) and around 24,000 premium packs (offering 45 cards for $100) set to be sold in the first wave. Topps is also offering a free ā€œexclusive Topps MLB Opening Day NFT Packā€ to the first 10,000 users who sign up for email alerts for new releases.

Itā€™s a similar idea to the NBAā€™s white-hot Top Shot NFTs, which offer fans purchasable video clips (called Moments) in card-like packs. Top Shot Moments are already a massive business ā€” some have sold for upwards of $200,000, and more than 800,000 accounts have yielded over $500 million in sales so far.

Not too shabby.

While the future may be digital, Mudrickā€™s investment thesis as outlined in the NYTimesā€™ article is focused on the longevity and stability of the physical business.

ā€œThat resilience is part of the bet that Mudrick Capital is making on the 80-year old Topps. Itā€™s a surer gamble, Mr. Mudrick said, than buying one of the many unprofitable start-ups currently courting SPAC deals.ā€

PETITION and other public investors only have a limited period of financials to digest, so we canā€™t refute Mr. Mudrickā€™s claims of Toppsā€™ financial resilience. From the financials we can see, Topps is growing and profitable. FY20 revenue of $567mm represented growth of 23% from prior year levels, and the company projects ā€” ah, the beauty of SPACs, go-forward projections! ā€” those trends to continue. FY21 and 2022 are estimated to grow to $692mm and $777mm, or 22% and 12% respectively. EBITDA margins expanded considerably in 2020, from 11% to 16%, and CapEx is incredibly low.

Topps - Financial Profile.png

The largest part of Toppsā€™ business is growing with the highest EBITDA margins ā€“ a positive sign.

Topps - Segment Margins.png

But is Topps really the sort of business Mudrick Capital intended to acquire with MUDS II? On one hand, the S-1 spins a different story:

ā€œOur business strategy is to identify, combine with and maximize the value of a company that has either recently emerged from bankruptcy court protection or will require incremental capital as part of a balance sheet restructuring. In particular, we believe that many post-restructured companies suffer from a valuation discount due to their opaqueness, complexity, non-long term ownership base and overall illiquidity. We believe that our in depth understanding of restructurings and post-restructuring company analysis, coupled with the more liquid publicly traded vehicle the company offers in an initial business combination, could result in significant value creation for our stockholders. Creating value for our stockholders is the ultimate goal of this business strategy.ā€ (emphasis added)

It's clear from the language that Mudrick Capital Acquisition Corporation II was intended to be a distressed-oriented SPAC. But Mudrick & Co. went in the complete opposite direction. Comparing Topps and Hycroft Mining, this couldnā€™t be a more divergent duo of companies; we liken the two businesses to ā€˜apples and napalm grenadesā€™. The market seemingly concurs. Juxtapose this ā¬‡ļø with the Hycroft chart ā¬†ļø:

Topps Price Chart.png

Just to piss in everyoneā€™s faces, Ares Management Corpā€™s CEO Michael Arougheti added (in a conversation with Bloombergā€™s Kelsey Butler):

ā€œThereā€™s underlying stress that will find its way into the markets but I donā€™t think thatā€™s anytime soon,ā€ Arougheti said at a virtual Bloomberg News event this week. Default rates are ā€œartificially lowā€ and asset prices are buoyant because ā€œthereā€™s so much liquidity masking that default rate that weā€™ve all grown accustomed to seeing at this point in the cycle that weā€™re probably two to three years out before we start seeing a traditional default cycle play out.ā€

And so maybe Topps should be viewed in the same lens as the infamous Howard Marksā€™ ā€˜Something of Valueā€™ investor letter ā€” a sign of capitulation among notable distressed managers. Weā€™re taking a more passive view on this. From our perspective, turning around a distressed businesses today requires a significant investment in both capital and time. And thereā€™s huge terminal value risk ā€“ many distressed businesses models are structurally challenged and may not exist in the next 5 ā€“ 10 years. In that context, Mudrickā€™s move to acquire a stable, healthy business at a full valuation makes intuitive sense. Why not sacrifice a few basis points of alpha to write a big check that doesnā€™t cause heartburn for a decade? (Side note: we think Starboard Valueā€™s acquisition of Cyxtera ties back to this theme, which we previously covered here).

As times change, so must distressed managers. In our humble opinion, Topps and Hycroft are worth paying attention to not only as interesting businesses in their own right, but as bellwethers for capital flows.

Of course, as we continue to evaluate all of this, we may get some additional data points:

āš”ļøUpdate: National CineMedia Inc ($NCMI)āš”ļø

Much like other companies tied to movie theaters, National CineMedia Inc ($NCMI) has experienced a bit of a stock run-up since we wrote about it in September 2020. Back then the stock price was around $3.45/share and today its around $4.50/share. While this is apropos of nothing, really, other than an equity market commentary where equity prices and market capitalizations are (mostly) detached from reality, it is especially fascinating when considered in the context of recent earnings results.

On March 8, 2021, NCMI reported Q420 and full year ā€˜20 results. They were a massive turd. Itā€™s hard to make money selling advertising in movie theaters when movie theaters arenā€™t open and, to the extent they are open, theyā€™re not really showing anything that anyone deems important enough to go out and see while risking contracting a deadly virus. Go figure.

The company, therefore, spent the majority of 2020ā€¦

TO READ THE REST OF THIS POST YOU MUST BE A SUBSCRIBER.

šŸ‘The Quarter in Review šŸ‘Ž

Itā€™s been a crazy quarter. Before we get there, though, a quick note about the week.

On Thursday we saw a rise in initial jobless claims sending a mixed signal on the same day that the S&P 500 broke above 4,000 for the first time ever and the ISM figures blew away expectations, reflecting robust order and production readings and foreshadowing an economy on the mend. The ISM gauge jumped nearly 4 points (to 64.7), representing the fastest pace of expansion since 1983 ā€” a result presaged by an impressive 5.3 point beat coming out of the Chicago PMI index earlier in the week.

President Biden announced a massive infrastructure plan which is sure to change considerably when all is said and done but, in the first instance, reflects some big (and expensive) thinking coming out of Washington DC. $621b of the new packageā€™s spending will be on transport infrastructure (e.g., roads, bridges, railroads, airports and hopefully better food options on the NYC-Wilmington Acela) while $174b will go to electric vehicles in the form of tax credits, a bolstered supply chain (with what commodities?) and 500k public charging stations. This push towards charging stations could help eliminate ā€œRange Anxietyā€ tied to electric vehicles and further push the internal combustion engine towards the history books. Weā€™ll see. If so, the long-awaited auto supply chain disruption that restructuring professionals (and, admittedly, PETITION) have been predicting for some time now may actually happen sooner rather than later (a weird thing to say considering many already expected it ā€œsoonerā€).

On Friday, the Bureau of Labor Statistics posted March jobs data: 916k adds. The expectation was 660k. šŸ¤Æ The unemployment rate dropped to 6%. Factoring in upward revisions for January and February, thereā€™s been a net gain of 1mm jobs since the turn of the calendar. Two weeks ago we mentioned Google mobility data showing a surge in traffic across public parks. Perhaps unsurprisingly, scenic and sightseeing transportation was the biggest percentage gainer. Non-internet broadcasting was the largest detractor, since nobody watches broadcast TV anymore. More details:

In March, employment in leisure and hospitality increased by 280,000, as pandemic-related restrictions eased in many parts of the country. Nearly two-thirds of the increase was in food services and drinking places (+176,000). Job gains also occurred in arts, entertainment, and recreation (+64,000) and in accommodation (+40,000). Employment in leisure and hospitality is down by 3.1 million, or 18.5 percent, since February 2020.

And:

Retail trade added 23,000 jobs in March. Job growth in clothing and clothing accessories stores (+16,000), motor vehicle and parts dealers (+13,000), and furniture and home furnishing stores (+6,000) was partially offset by losses in building material and garden supply stores (-9,000) and general merchandise stores (-7,000). Employment in retail trade is 381,000 below its February 2020 level.

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Some of these gains have to be in energy.: total rig counts and frac spreads continue to rise along with (relatively) higher oil prices.

What else? Hmmmm. Well, in spite of their enthusiastic ā€œf*ck the suitsā€ campaign, day traders who bought into the Hertz frenzy last year hope to benefit from the hedge fund ā€œsuitsā€ seeking to convince the bankruptcy court that Hertz equity is in the money. Thatā€™ll be hard to do considering the company is opting for an ā€œenhancedā€ offer from Centerbridge PartersWarburg Pincus and Dundon Capital Partners that reportedly has the support of 85% of the holders of the companyā€™s unsecured notes (which theyā€™ll exchange for 48.2% of the reorganized equity and rights to participate in a fully backstopped $1.6b equity offering). In other words, the company and its lenders clearly believe the fulcrum security is about mid-way through the unsecureds (PETITION Note: your next sh*tty car rental powered by private equity). Anywho, elsewhere in somewhat unexpected alliances, British PM Boris Johnson said that he was very hopeful that the government could leverage post-Brexit flexibility to buy British steel from Liberty Steel. Liberty is part of GFG Alliance which saw its funding evaporate following the collapse of Greensill Capital.

It wouldnā€™t be an a$$-kicking Sunday briefing without mention of at least one major loser: the forced liquidation of Bill Hwangā€™s Archegos Capital Management rippled through Wall Street as banks sought to liquidate securities held against the derivative exposure they provided to the family office. Credit Suisse Group ($CS) and Nomura Holdings ($NMR) are anticipating significant losses on their exposure, while Goldman Sachs ($GS), Morgan Stanley ($MS), and Deutsche Bank ($DB) appear to escaped mostly unscathed. The banks initially sought to coordinate liquidation but those efforts were derailed as Goldman and Morgan raced to sell down their positions, providing a fresh take on creditor-on-creditor violence.

*****

Meanwhile, to say that this quarter has been wild would be understating things. Letā€™s not forget that a bunch of hooligans stormed the Capitol, the former President got impeached, a new President took office, two Democrats won election to the Senate in Georgia (flipping control), COVID-19 surged but then so did vaccine approval and dissemination, a stimulus deal got done, inflation fears flew (doubling the 10-year treasury yield), a record number of SPACs went out to market and non-fungible tokens became a thing that leapt from heretofore-unknown to omnipresent.

In equity markets, after Tesla Inc. ($TSLA) got added to the S&P 500 and Cathie Woodā€™s ARK Innovation ETF ($ARKK) went balls to the wall piling up Tesla stock (and, derivatively, Bitcoin?), the companyā€™s stock closed Q121 down 5.4% (and dropped another 1.5% in the first trading day of Q2). On the flip side, Bitcoin soared and so did ā€¦ uh ā€¦ GameStop Inc. ($GME). In case you didnā€™t hear. It finished the quarter up 907%. Thatā€™s no typo. 907-f*cking-percent. Bitcoin, paled in comparison, up a mere 104%. On the flip side, gold got absolutely smoked ā€” a fact reflected in the performance of PETITION-fave Hycroft Mining Holding Corporation ($HYMC).

Loan and bond markets have been hot and heavy and CLO formation is occurring at a record-setting rate. Ratings agencies are busier upgrading companies than they are downgrading them. The list of distressed credits keeps dwindling. High yield is anything but these days.

The healthy loan and bond markets make sense when considered in the context of broader M&A and private equity: both broke all-time records in Q121. US M&A hit an all-time Q1 high, accounting for 50% of $1.3t in global M&A. The largest deal was the previously-discussed merger between General Electric Inc.ā€™s ($GE) aircraft leasing business and AerCap Holdings N.V. ($AER). YOY PE deals were up 57%, hitting $249b, double the value of Q120.

Things are looking up for CMBS too. According to Trepp, the CMBS delinquency rate declined again in March after a substantial drop in February, marking the ninth straight month of declines since the worst of the cycle in May/June ā€˜20. Despite the overall decline, the rate for lodging remains stubbornly high and March witnessed some upticks in delinquency for certain property types, e.g., multi-family and office. Retail is on the decline.

Combined, all of this seems to favor ā€œthe bright sideā€ of things which, for restructuring professionals, may not translate to the busiest 2021. Speaking of bright sides, hereā€™s a random fact for you: The Killersā€™ ā€œMr. Brightsideā€ has spent five years on the UKā€™s top 100, a new record. Thatā€™s 260 weeks running. Every week it is streamed 1.2mm times.

*****

On the bankruptcy front, it was a relatively slow quarter. The biggest drama came from the unprecedented Texas storm which led to a number of chapter 11 filings, e.g., Brazos Electric Power Cooperative Inc.Griddy Energy LLC, Entrust Energy Inc. and Just Energy Group Inc., to name a few, with more likely to follow.

Energy, as usual, created bankruptcy fees. Seadrill Ltd.Castex Energy 2005 Holdco LLCSundance Energy Inc.Highpoint Resources Corporation, and Nine Point Energy Holdings Inc. filled dockets.

Similarly, retail had its smattering of bankruptcy activity. Loves Furniture Inc.Tea Olive I LLC (d/b/a Stock+Field)Christopher & Banks CorporationLā€™Occitane Inc.Paper Source Inc., and Belk Inc. added their names to the lengthy list of retailer-cum-debtors.

The best part? The work was pretty scattered. As usual, Kirkland & Ellis LLP and Latham & Watkins LLP had their share of the bigger cases. Other than a foray into the Israeli bond marketWeil Gotshal & Manges LLP was quiet. Foley & Lardner LLP and Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones LLP filed a couple of cases each.

On the advisory side, thanks as usual to Kirkland, Alvarez & Marsal LLC had its share of cases. AlixPartners had a busy March as it slowly gains more traction in the energy space. And a smaller shop, Ryniker Associates, picked up a few key assignments in January (Ferrellgas Partners LP and Lā€™Occitane). Moelis & Company also had a busy January.

For our part, we pushed out ā€” if we do say so ourselves ā€” a lot more a$$-kicking content.

Our most viewed briefings were: ā€œšŸ”„Will Clubhouse own your ear?šŸ”„ā€ and ā€œšŸ’°AMCšŸ’°.ā€

What did we miss? Email us: petition@petition11.com.