January 22, 2019

January 22, 2019

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

In re Tribune Co.: Allowance of Post-Petition Indenture Trustees Fees as Unsecured Claim

In a brief but significant opinion, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware reversed a decision by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware and allowed more than $30 million in unsecured, post-petition fees incurred by an indenture trustee ("Indenture Trustee").1 In reversing, the District Court relied upon a uniform body of Court of Appeals opinions issued on the subject.

Bankruptcy Court Opinion

The Indenture Trustee was trustee to a class of unsecured subordinated debentures issued by Tribune Media Company ("Debtor"). The Indenture Trustee filed a proof of claim in Debtor's bankruptcy case seeking, among other claim components, over $30 million in post-petition fees (the "Fee Claim").2 The Indenture Trustee filed the claim pursuant to a confirmed plan of reorganization that permitted the Indenture Trustee to seek a general unsecured claim for any fees and expenses incurred arising under the indenture. The reorganized Debtor objected to the Trustee's claim, and late in 2015, the Bankruptcy Court disallowed the Fee Claim.

The Bankruptcy Court relied primarily upon Global Indus. Tech. Serv. Co. v. Tanglewood Inv., Inc. (In re Global Indus. Tech., Inc.), 327 B.R. 230, 239 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. 2005) in disallowing the Indenture Trustee's Fee Claim. The Bankruptcy Court noted four overlapping arguments from the Global Industries opinion that persuaded it to disallow the Fee Claim:

  • First, relying on an analog of the maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius (the expression of one is the exclusion of the alternatives), unsecured creditors are not entitled to post-petition fees because §506(b) of the Bankruptcy Code expressly provides for the allowance of post-petition attorneys' fees only for oversecured creditors, but no Bankruptcy Code provision allows such fees for unsecured creditors.
  • Second, the United States Supreme Court previously ruled in Timbers that §506(b) permits only oversecured creditors to recover post-petition interest on their claims.3 Using a similar analysis to the argument above, the Bankruptcy Court found that since §506(b) provides for the allowance of post-petition fees and interest only to oversecured creditors, unsecured creditors must be excluded from having claims for post-petition fees.
  • Third,Bankruptcy Code § 502(b) requires a court to determine the amount of a claim as of the date the petition was filed. By definition, post-petition fees have not accrued as of the petition date and therefore cannot be considered as part of the claim. The source of post-petition fees under the Bankruptcy Code is §506(b), which adds post-petition interest and fees only to the extent a creditor is oversecured (as noted in the first two arguments).
  • Finally,it would be inequitable to allow certain unsecured creditors to recover post-petition fees at the expense of certain other unsecured creditors who are not entitled to recover post-petition attorney's fees.

The Bankruptcy Court also briefly addressed the Supreme Court's opinion in Travelers.4 Travelers concerned whether a party may recover post-petition fees authorized by a prepetition contract. In reversing a prevailing rule of law in Ninth Circuit,5 the Supreme Court held that "an otherwise enforceable contract allocating attorney's fees . . . is allowable in bankruptcy except where the Bankruptcy Code provides otherwise."6 The Bankruptcy Court was not persuaded by the Indenture Trustee's argument that Travelers, therefore, permits unsecured creditors to claim post-petition fees. Rather, the Bankruptcy Court rejected the argument, noting that in Travelers the Supreme Court wrote: "we express no opinion with regard to whether, following the demise of the Fobian rule, other principles of bankruptcy law might provide an independent basis for disallowing Travelers' claim for attorney's fees."7

The Indenture Trustee appealed the decision to the US District Court.

District Court (Appellate) Opinion

The District Court's opinion was brief and turned on the pronouncement in Travelers that, "claims enforceable under applicable state law will be allowed in bankruptcy unless they are expressly disallowed."8 Although the Third Circuit has not opined on the matter, the District Court cited opinions from the First, Second, Seventh, Ninth, and Eleventh circuits,9all of which have "allowed unsecured claims for contractual attorneys' fees that accrued post-filing of the bankruptcy petition." The District Court specifically held: "I cannot conclude that Section 506(b) 'expressly' disallows the claims at issue here. Thus, I agree with the position adopted by every court of appeals faced with this question; Section 506(b) does not limit the allowability of unsecured claims for contractual post-petition attorneys' fees under Section 502."

This ruling is the latest in a growing line of opinions favoring unsecured creditors (including in the capacity as indenture trustees) with claims for post-petition fees. Such rulings strengthen the ability of indenture trustees to protect the interests of constituent creditors, particularly unsecured noteholders.


Wilmington Trust Co. v. Tribune Media Co. (In re Tribune Media Co., et al.), Case No. 15-01116 (RGA) (D. Del. Nov. 26, 2018)

2 The Fee Claim is the disallowed portion of the proof of claim that was the subject of the Indenture Trustee's appeal.

United Sav. Ass'n of Texas v. Timbers of Inwood Forest Assoc., Ltd., 484 U.S. 365, 108 S.Ct. 626, 98 L.Ed.2d 740 (1988).

Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. of Am. v. Pac. Gas and Elec. Co., 549 U.S. 443, 127 S.Ct. 1199, 167 L.Ed.2d 178 (2007).

5 The Supreme Court rejected the so-called Fobian rule, which provided that a party may not recover attorney's fees when the post-petition litigation concerns not basic contract enforcement questions, but issues "peculiar to federal bankruptcy law." See id. at 447.

Id. at 448.

Id. at 456.

Id. at 452.

See UPS Capital Bus. Credit v. Gencarelli (In re Gencarelli), 501 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2007); Ogle v. Fid. & Deposit Co. of Md., 586 F.3d 143 (2d Cir. 2009); Busson-Sokolik v. Milwaukee Sch. Of Eng'g (In re Sokolik), 635 F.3d 261 (7th Cir. 2011); SNTL Corp. v. Ctr. Ins. Co. (In re SNTL Corp.), 571 F.3d 826 (9th Cir. 2009); Welzel v. Advocate Realty Invs., LLC (In re Welzel), 275 F.3d 1308 (11th Cir. 2001).

©2019 Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP

TRENDING LEGAL ANALYSIS


About this Author

Craig A. Barbarosh, Corporate Legal Specialist, Katten Muchin
Partner

Craig A. Barbarosh handles major insolvency engagements throughout the country. Chambers USA notes that he is "masterful in helping [clients] navigate the waters" of bankruptcy and "is an incredibly measured and practical negotiator." Additionally, Chambers USA says clients who are "impressed with his energy and intelligence" describe him as "a truly amazing and effective...

714.386.5786
David A. Crichlow Litigation lawyer Katten Munchin
Partner

David A. Crichlow represents large companies in some of their most important litigation in federal and state courts, administrative agencies and arbitration tribunals throughout the country. David counsels clients in contract, commercial fraud, securities, banking, government contracts and class action litigation, as well as internal corporate investigations.

David focuses his practice on complex commercial litigation, class action defense, creditors’ rights and bankruptcy litigation. His experience is wide ranging, and includes representing the equity committee in the Solutia bankruptcy in its $2 billion lawsuit against Solutia’s former partner asserting undercapitalization of Solutia at spin-off; defending a Cayman Island hedge fund against a $324 million preference action brought by the creditors’ committee in the Refco bankruptcy; and defending an indenture trustee against a “bet-the-company” putative class action related to a $40 million bond offering that was alleged to be part of a Ponzi scheme by the issuer. His clients include some of the largest banks in the United States and in Europe, as well as major oil companies and one of the largest pension funds in the United States.

In more than 27 years of practice, David has held the first chair position in litigation across the country. He manages his cases from discovery through verdict. His track record of successfully defending clients includes resolving cases before trial, through mediation and arbitration, as well as zealous representation in the courtroom.

1.212.940.8941
Karen B. Dine, Katten Muchin law firm, bankruptcy attorney
Partner

Karen B. Dine represents participants in every part of the capital structure in bankruptcy, insolvency and related matters. Her clients operate in diverse industries, including real estate, oil and gas, retail, manufacturing, gaming and hospitality, aviation, life sciences, food and beverage, chemicals and mortgage lending.

With more than 20 years of experience in bankruptcy law, Karen counsels institutional lenders, secured lenders, indenture trustees, investment and private equity funds, debtors-in-possession, equity, creditors' and bondholders'...

212.940.8772
Jerry L. Hall, Katten Muchin, significant bankruptcy lawyer, restructuring litigation attorney
Special Counsel

Jerry L. Hall advises parties nationally in significant bankruptcy, restructuring and litigation matters. His clients span diverse industries, including real estate, retail, manufacturing, gaming and hospitality, aviation, life sciences, telecommunications and finance. 

With 18 years of experience in bankruptcy cases and related litigation, Jerry represents secured lenders, indenture trustees, debtors-in-possession, committees, distressed debt investors, lessors and troubled companies in and out of court. He advises on financial and operational...

202.625.3646