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

Harvard Law School Bankruptcy Roundtable

  • 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

And Another Lender Blocking Provision Bites the Dust, Texas Bankruptcy Court Rules

By Adam C. Rogoff and Ashland J. Bernard (Kramer Levin)

 Adam C. Rogoff
Adam C. Rogoff
Ashland J. Bernard

One feature commonly seen in commercial lending transactions is a waiver of the borrower’s authority to file for bankruptcy without the consent of the lender. While such “blocking” provisions are generally upheld where the equity interest holders are the parties with such rights, they are generally unenforceable as a matter of public policy when such protection is given to a creditor with no meaningful ownership interest in the corporate debtor.

In a recent decision issued in In re Roberson Cartridge Co., LLC, Case No. 22-20192 (RLJ), 2023 Bankr. LEXIS 588 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. March 7, 2023), the Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas denied a secured creditor’s motion to dismiss the corporate debtor’s Chapter 7 case on the grounds that the petition was filed without the requisite corporate authority. In doing so, the bankruptcy court held void as against public policy a blocking provision in the company’s governing documents, which purported to give the creditor — which held convertible debt of the debtor — the exclusive right to consent to the debtor’s bankruptcy filing. Through an analysis of the company’s governing documents under applicable provisions of the Texas Business Organizations Code, the bankruptcy court concluded that a pledge of equity by the debtor-LLC’s member did not divest the LLC’s manager from corporate authority to file for bankruptcy. Nor was the consent right enforceable with respect to convertible debt where, prior to the bankruptcy filing, the creditor had not exercised its right to convert the debt to equity (and therefore was only a creditor on the petition date). This ruling of a bankruptcy court in the Fifth Circuit joins the growing body of case law from other circuits that holds such bankruptcy-restrictive contractual provisions void as a matter of public policy.

Click here to read the full article.

Written by:
Editor
Published on:
May 23, 2023

Categories: Bankruptcy, Chapter 11, Jurisprudence, Secured LendersTags: Adam C. Rogoff, Ashland J. Bernard, Blocking Provisions, Chapter 7, Kramer Levin, syndicated, Texas Bankruptcy Court

Primary Sidebar

Categories

Recent Posts

Creditor Rights and Legal Transaction Costs

December 5, 2023

[Purdue Pharma Bankruptcy Series] Respondent Briefs (Respondent and pro-release parties)

November 28, 2023

[Purdue Pharma Bankruptcy Series] Petitioner Briefs (US Trustee and other anti-release parties)

November 21, 2023

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 COVID-19 cramdown David Skeel Derivatives DIP Financing Empirical FIBA Financial Crisis fraudulent transfer Jared A. Ellias Jevic Johnson & Johnson Jones Day Kenneth Ayotte Lehman LTL Management Mark G. Douglas Mark Roe Michael L. Cook plan confirmation Priority restructuring Safe Harbors Schulte Roth & Zabel Sovereign Debt SPOE Stephen Lubben 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 © 2023 · Navigation Pro on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in