• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
Harvard Law School Bankruptcy Roundtable

Harvard Law School Bankruptcy Roundtable

  • Blog
  • About Us
  • Coverage-in-Depth
    • Crypto-Bankruptcy
    • Purdue Pharma Bankruptcy
    • Texas Two-Step and the Future of Mass Tort Bankruptcy
  • Subscribe
  • Show Search
Hide Search

Federal Antitrust Laws: A New Tool to Prohibit Pre-Petition Coordination Among Creditors?

By Bradley Purcell, Justin Sabin, and Jamila Willis, Bryan Cave LLP

In today’s economic climate, restructuring activity is at a lull. Out-of-court solutions are attractive to financially distressed companies – they avoid the delay, the costs and the uncertainty of formal bankruptcy cases. Indeed, for these very reasons, cooperation between creditors and debtors is common and often encouraged by bankruptcy courts.

Though the Bankruptcy Code contemplates participation by committees of creditors and the goal of maximizing creditor recoveries, a string of recent opinions from the Eleventh Circuit casts doubt on the ability of creditors to lawfully coordinate in their pre-petition negotiations with debtors. In CompuCredit Holdings Corp. v. Akanthos Capital Mgmt., LLC, 916 F. Supp. 2d 1326 (N.D. Ga. 2011), a debtor brought suit against creditors who attempted collective negotiation, alleging violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, which prohibits anti-competitive behavior. The Eleventh Circuit’s en banc panel split evenly on whether CompuCredit had an antitrust claim under the Sherman Act based on the creditors’ collective conduct.

While this doesn’t change the bankruptcy landscape, it creates uncertainty in pre-petition negotiations and out-of-court workouts. An aggressive obligor may use the Eleventh Circuit’s en banc ruling and relevant antitrust laws to impede collective, pre-petition negotiation of creditors and quell negotiations and actions by pre-petition or informal committees of creditors.

The full discussion can be found here.

Written by:
Editor
Published on:
September 16, 2014

Categories: Bankruptcy Administration and JurisdictionTags: Bradley Purcell, Bryan Cave, Jamila Willis, Justin Sabin

Primary Sidebar

Categories

Recent Posts

  • Chapter 15 Case Demonstrates Its Effectiveness as an Expedient Judicial Solution for Singaporean Insolvencies in the United States May 13, 2025
  • Do Rights Offerings Reduce Bargaining Complexity in Chapter 11? May 6, 2025
  • Rockville Centre Case Offers a Framework for Settling Mass Tort Bankruptcy Claims Post-Purdue April 29, 2025

View by Subject Matter

363 sales Anthony Casey Bankruptcy Bankruptcy administration Bankruptcy Courts Bankruptcy Reform Chapter 11 Chapter 15 Claims Trading Cleary Gottlieb Comparative Law Corporate Governance COVID-19 cramdown David Skeel Derivatives DIP Financing Empirical FIBA Financial Crisis fraudulent transfer Jared A. Ellias Jevic Johnson & Johnson Jones Day Mark G. Douglas Mark Roe plan confirmation Priority Purdue Pharma Purdue Pharma bankruptcy restructuring Safe Harbors Schulte Roth & Zabel Sovereign Debt SPOE Stephen Lubben Structured Dismissals Supreme Court syndicated Texas Two-Step Trust Indenture Act Valuation Weil Gotshal Workouts

Footer

Harvard Law School Bankruptcy Roundtable

1563 Massachusetts Ave,
Cambridge, MA 02138
Accessibility | Digital Accessibility | Harvard Law School

Copyright © 2023 The President and Fellows of Harvard College

Copyright © 2025 · Navigation Pro on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in