Search

In both Chrysler and General Motors, the government was, among other things, a large creditor exercising control over its debtor and pushing for a speedy sale of the assets. Together the two cases capture the issues central to large Chapter 11 cases today. The debate over speedy sales of businesses in Chapter 11 is over. Sales are now the norm in large reorganizations. Instead of asking whether there should be sales in bankruptcy, we need to ask how to police various forms of abuse. Three years after the fact, we can begin to draw some conclusions about the reorganizations of Chrysler and General Motors. The government’s use of the bankruptcy laws to inject tens of billions into two of the country’s largest automobile companies had its intended effect. At the start of 2009, General Motors and Chrysler were bleeding to death. 2 Maintaining either business as a going concern required a massive infusion of capital no one in the private market was willing to provide. As a result of the government’s intervention, the basic structure of the American automobile industry was preserved.

When a firm encounters financial distress, there is a significant possibility that, at some point, the firm itself should be shut down and its assets put to better use. But Chapter 11 and indeed all market-mimicking reorganization regimes other than a speedy auction entrust the shutdown decision to a bankruptcy judge who lacks information and expertise, as well as the ability to control the timing of her decisions. Understanding the costs of entrusting the shutdown decision to a bankruptcy judge is central to assessing any law of corporate reorganizations. This article models the shutdown decision as the exercise of a real option. The model suggests that the shutdown decision may loom so large in the early parts of the bankruptcy case that it erases any significant difference between Chapter 11 and many alternative market-mimicking regimes. All these regimes take more time than mandatory auctions and thus increase the cost of taking the shutdown decision away from a market actor. Moreover, the real option itself gives parties an incentive to withhold information. Only a system of mandatory auctions both limits the amount of time the shutdown option resides with an inexpert decision maker and forces insiders to give that decision maker sufficient information to value the option

A meeting of international finance and insolvency experts was held on November 2, 2013 at the Annenberg House in Santa Monica, California. The meeting was co-hosted by the USC Law School and the Annenberg Retreat at Sunnylands. The goal was to solicit the views of experts on the implications of the IMF’s April 26, 2013 paper captioned “Sovereign Debt Restructuring -- Recent Developments and Implications for the Fund’s Legal and Policy Framework”. The April 26 paper may signal a shift in IMF policies in the area of sovereign debt workouts. Although the Expert Group discussed a number of the ideas contained in the April 26 paper, attention focused on paragraph 32 of that paper. That paragraph states in relevant part: “There may be a case for exploring additional ways to limit the risk that Fund resources will simply be used to bail out private creditors. For example, a presumption could be established that some form of a creditor bail-in measure would be implemented as a condition for Fund lending in cases where, although no clear-cut determination has been made that the debt is unsustainable, the member has lost market access and prospects for regaining market access are uncertain.”This Report summarizes the consensus views of the Expert Group on the practical implications of the suggestions contained in paragraph 32 of the April 26 paper.

WHEN Eastern Airlines filed its bankruptcy petition in March 1989, its future was bleak. For decades, it had systematically invested in the wrong airplanes, beginning with a commitment to propeller aircraft in the late 1950s. Its cost structure was higher than its competitors. It had failed to find a viable market niche in a deregulated environment, an environment in which the hub-and-spoke system brought significant economies of scale. Eastern had already sold its most valuable assets, such as its shuttle between Washington, D.C., and New York, and its entire work force was on strike. Moreover, its service was poorly regarded, and it had little goodwill with the general public. If Chapter 11 mandated that the assets of a publicly traded firm be swiftly sold, however, someone would have bought Eastern's airplanes and landing gates for an amount sufficient to provide a dividend to the preferred stockholders. Instead, the managers of Eastern and later a court-appointed trustee used the umbrella of bankruptcy law to try to keep the airline intact as a going concern. Over the next two years, Eastern lost over a billion dollars. The airline began liquidation only when its assets were insufficient to pay the administrative expenses, such as lawyers' fees, involved in running the bankruptcy case.1 Financial News Network (FNN) entered Chapter 11 in early 1991. Shortly afterward, a joint venture between Dow Jones and Group W offered to pay $90 million for FNN's assets. A unit of NBC countered with a bid of $115 million. The bankruptcy court ordered an auction of the firm's assets. NBC eventually won with a bid of $146 million and

WHEN the managers of RJR-Nabisco announced that they wanted to take the company private, the value of its bonds dropped by $500 million in a single day. The manager's plan, as in most buyouts, called for dramatically increasing the debt-equity ratio of the firm. Instead of holding a senior interest in a firm that had assets greatly in excess of its liabilities, the bondholders found that they would be left with an interest in a firm with the same assets but encumbered with much more debt. They would have claims against a firm with a greater risk of becoming insolvent and of being unable to pay its creditors in full. The same promise from a riskier debtor is worth less-in this case, it might seem, $500 million less. Transactions in which a firm is sold and becomes substantially more leveraged were commonplace in the late 1980s. They accounted for over 20 percent of takeover activity in the United States and totaled almost $50 billion a year.' The legal rights of prebuyout creditors will be a focal point of litigation in any of these transactions that unravel in the 1990s, as some already have and more inevitably will. Before they lend, creditors can insist on a variety of event risk covenants such as "poison puts" that allow them to accelerate the firm's obligations to repay in the event that the firm dramatically changes its capital structure. Poison puts and other clauses, however, aid only those who have them. Those parties who do not, like parties to any other agreement, must look to the background legal rules to flesh out their obligations. The rules governing the rights of the bondholders fall within

Bankruptcy law does not exist in a vacuum, yet one cannot spend much time reading in the field without noting that few judges or scholars have taken this observation to heart.' Too many seem to think that a bankruptcy proceeding provides, in the main, an essentially unlimited opportunity to do what appears at the moment to be good, just, or fair without regard to the reasons for having a system of bankruptcy laws in the first place.2 A close study of the present controversy over the adequate protection of secured creditors illustrates the shallowness of much of the recent discussion of bankruptcy law and the consequences of a failure to

This paper shows that the dynamics of Chapter 11 turn dramatically on the size of the business. The vast majority of the assets administered in Chapter 11 are concentrated in a handful of large cases, but most of the businesses in Chapter 11 are small, and the smaller the business, the smaller the distribution to general unsecured creditors. For businesses with assets above $5 million, unsecured creditors typically collect half of what they are owed. Where the business's assets are worth less than $200,000, ordinary general creditors usually recover nothing. In the typical small Chapter 11 case, the tax collector is the central figure. In small business bankruptcies, priority tax liabilities are the largest unsecured liabilities of the business. Tax obligations are entitled to priority and are obligations of both the corporation and those who run it. Given the large shadow tax claims cast over small Chapter 11 reorganizations, accounts of small Chapter 11 must focus squarely on them.

Agency costs dominate academic thinking about corporate governance. The central challenge is to devise legal rules to align the interests of the managers (the agents) with those of the shareholders (the principals). This preoccupation is misplaced. Whether it is finding a baby-sitter or a dean, the challenge of hiring the right person dwarfs the challenge of aligning that person's incentives. The central task for corporate governance - its Prime Directive - is to ensure that the right person is running the business. In this essay, we suggest that the challenge of aligning the managers' incentives has been drastically overstated and the way in which legal rules affect hiring (and firing) decisions has been too often ignored. Putting the emphasis on agency costs may lead to rules that slight what matters most. The current preoccupation with executive compensation runs the risk of inducing the board to worry more about the details of the employment contract rather than selecting the best person in the first instance. More important, the law can play an important role ensuring bad managers are fired. Once hired, all managers need to be mentored, monitored and, when necessary, replaced. There is little to suggest that a single entity is well-situated to perform all three. There is tension between the roles of confidant and policeman. Here, debt contracts play a crucial and largely neglected role. Covenants in debt contracts can insure that underperforming managers are called to task. Private debt holders' role in monitoring a business and ensuring that underperforming managers are replaced may be as important as the market for corporate control.

Chapter 11 is thought to preserve the going-concern surplus of a financially distressed business-the extra value that its assets possess in their current configuration. Financial distress leads to conflicts among creditors that can lead to inefficient liquidation of a business with going-concern surplus. Chapter 11 avoids this by providing the business with a way of fashioning a new capital structure. This account of Chapter 11 fails to capture what is happening in the typical case. The typical Chapter 11 debtor is a small corporation whose assets are not specialized and rarely worth enough to pay tax claims. There is no business worth saving and there are no assets to fight over. The focal point is not the business, but the person who runs it. She is a serial entrepreneur, searching for the business that best matches her skills. For the vast majority of cases, then, Chapter 11 is best seen through the lens of labor economics not corporate finance. Chapter 11 offers the entrepreneur increased liquidity as well as a forum for renegotiating debts (such as unpaid withholding taxes) for which she as well as the corporation are liable. But Chapter 11 offers these benefits only to entrepreneurs who remain with their existing businesses. This lock-in effect is qualitatively no different from the one commonly associated with rent control. These effects, as well as the costs the process imposes on third parties, should be the focus of any assessment of how well Chapter 11 works.

This paper revisits two examples of vertical integration in the early automobile industry: GM and Fisher Body on the one hand and Ford Motor and Keim Mills on the other. The paper shows that asset-specific investment and the fear of hold-up played at best a negligible role. What mattered in the case of GM and Fisher Body was close coordination of assembly operations. In the case of Ford Motor and Keim Mills, vertical integration was an important step (but only one of many) that Henry Ford took to ensure that his production team remained intact. In the case of GM and Fisher Body, GM’s decision to coordinate the assembly of Chevrolet components, including car bodies, at multiple locations proved crucial. Shipping complete car bodies and storing them at each Chevrolet assembly plant was expensive and unwieldy. Instead, Fisher Body shipped sheets of stamped metal to assembly plants built at GM’s expense adjacent to each new Chevrolet assembly plant. At these plants, Fisher Body coordinated the welding of the sheets into car bodies with Chevrolet’s production team. The close coordination of these plant level operations made the activities of Fisher and Chevrolet indistinguishable from most activity that takes place inside a conventional firm. These production efficiencies made vertical integration sensible, but the date of formal legal integration came late and was not itself of great moment. The success of the Model T depended crucially on Henry Ford’s ability to keep his production team together. Many team members worked initially for Keim Mills, and Keim became a subsidiary of Ford. But, as in the case of GM and Fisher Body, the formal legal event marking vertical integration of Ford and Keim did not coincide with the important economic events. The members of the Keim Mills team designed the Model T well before vertical integration, and their later contributions came only when they moved from Buffalo to Detroit, something that was independent of and took place after vertical integration. The value of the Model T depended crucially on the members of the team Henry Ford put together, but relatively little on whether, as a legal matter, the Ford Motor Company employed them. Retracing famous journeys is a time-honored and worthy tradition. Great explorers necessarily leave some terrain unsurveyed when they visit new territory for the first time. As we mark the Law School’s centennial, there is one journey especially worthy of our attention. When he was a 20-year-old undergraduate, Ronald Coase spent the better part of a year visiting the great industrial plants in the United States. Out of this research emerged The Nature of the Firm, The Problem of Social Cost, and much of modern law and economics. Coase solved many mysteries that ∗ Harry A. Bigelow Distinguished Service Professor, University of Chicago. I thank Richard Brooks, R.H. Coase, Keith Gill, Mark Haywood, Michael Hilgers, and the staff at the Museum of Science and Industry for their help. The ideas in this paper grow out of my long, fruitful, and continuing collaboration with my colleague Robert Rasmussen, to whom I am, as always, most indebted. For its support of this and many other projects, I am grateful to the John M. Olin Foundation. 1 R. H. Coase, The Nature of the Firm, 4 Economica 386 (1937). 2 R. H. Coase, The Problem of Social Cost, 3 J L & Econ 1 (1960). year, but, happily for the rest of us, not all of them. One of the most intriguing arises out of the relationship between General Motors and Fisher Body, one of its principal suppliers. Coase was primarily interested in what drove managers to produce something inside a firm rather than acquire it in the marketplace. GM’s acquisition of Fisher Body was therefore a subject of particular interest to him. Fisher Body began as an independent firm that supplied GM with all of its closed car bodies. In 1926, GM acquired Fisher and thereafter produced all of its car bodies internally, along with the two other major components of their cars (the chassis and drive train), both of which it made largely in house. Hence, while interviewing GM executives in 1932, Coase naturally asked about the firm’s acquisition of Fisher Body. They told him that the need to build body plants next to GM’s assembly plants drove the decision. The conversation, however, seems to have stopped here. Coase did not learn why they wanted body plants next to assembly plants or why doing this required the vertical integration of the two firms. As it happened, other bits of evidence led him to a new understanding of the nature of the firm, and this line of inquiry

In The End of Bankruptcy we detailed the forces that have rendered obsolete traditional conceptions of corporate reorganization. In a response to our article, Lynn LoPucki asserts that our paper lacked empirical foundation. In this response, we draw on LoPucki's data set of the reorganization of large, publicly held entities to show the robustness of our claims, both empirical and theoretical. Looking in detail at the firms whose Chapter 11 cases ended in 2002, most of which concluded after we completed our original piece, we find that in over 80% of the cases the assets of the firm were either sold or the bankruptcy proceeding put in place a restructuring plan agreed to before bankruptcy was filed. The remaining firms evince little in the way of going-concern value. Moreover, equityholders are nearly always wiped out, and the board of directors is usually replaced. Today's bankruptcy practice reveals creditors, particularly the senior lenders, in control. They use their powers to remove managers in whom they have lost confidence, replace the board of directors, put the corporation on the auction block and terminate the interest of equityholders. This paper provides further evidence that issues of control rather than priority dominate modern reorganization practice.

At the time that Enron filed for bankruptcy, it had substantial assets, thousands of creditors, an opaque capital structure, and more than a whiff of fraud. By the traditional account, Enron is a prototypical example of a firm with problems that a law of corporate reorganizations is designed to solve. Like the 19th century receiverships of the great railroads, the reorganization of Enron could have allowed creditors and others to negotiate with each other and find a way to preserve the value of the firm as a going concern at the same time misdeeds are uncovered and losses are allocated among the different players. Negotiations aimed at preserving Enron's value as a going concern never took place, however. As is increasingly the case in large Chapter 11s, Enron's assets were sold quickly, most within a few weeks or months of the filing. The decision as to how to deploy Enron's assets lay not in the court but in the new owners. After selling the assets, the bankruptcy court quickly turned to what courts do best - sorting out complex and perhaps conflicting legal entitlements. This pattern of a prompt sale followed by litigation over the distribution of the proceeds reflects a dramatic change in large firm bankruptcy practice. It suggests that we should no longer think of Chapter 11 as a collective forum in which the interested parties gather to bargain over the fate of the firm.

Traditional approaches to corporate governance focus exclusively on shareholders and neglect the large and growing role of creditors. Today’s creditors craft elaborate covenants that give them a large role in the affairs of the corporation. While they do not exercise their rights in sunny times when things are going well, these are not the times that matter most. When a business stumbles, creditors typically enjoy powers that public shareholders never have, such as the ability to replace the managers and install those more to their liking. Creditors exercise these powers even when the business is far from being insolvent and continues to pay its debts. Bankruptcy provides no sanctuary, as senior lenders ensure that their powers either go unchecked or are enhanced. The powers that modern lenders wield rival in importance the hostile takeover in disciplining poor or underperforming managers. This Essay explores these powers and begins the task of integrating this lever of corporate governance into the modern account of corporate law.