In re Iridium Operating LLC
2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 5134, 478 F.3d 452, 47 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 243 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When evaluating a pre-plan settlement in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy under Rule 9019, compliance with the Bankruptcy Code's absolute priority rule is the most important factor a court must consider. A settlement that deviates from the priority rule may only be approved if the parties provide a specific, credible justification and the court clearly articulates its reasons for permitting the deviation.
Facts:
- Motorola developed a global satellite communication system and spun it off into a new company, Iridium Operating LLC.
- Iridium borrowed approximately $1.55 billion from a consortium of Lenders, represented by JPMorgan Chase, who asserted they had perfected liens on all of Iridium's assets.
- Facing commercial failure, Iridium filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.
- The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (the 'Committee') contested the validity of the Lenders' liens on the estate's cash.
- The Committee also wanted to pursue claims against Motorola on behalf of the estate for breach of contract and fiduciary duty, but the estate lacked the funds to litigate.
- The Committee and the Lenders negotiated a settlement where the Lenders' liens would be recognized, the Lenders would receive $92.5 million, and $37.5 million of the estate's cash would be used to create a litigation trust (the ILLLC) to sue Motorola.
- The settlement stipulated that any funds remaining in the ILLLC after the litigation would be distributed directly to unsecured creditors.
- Motorola, itself a senior administrative creditor of the Iridium estate, would be skipped in the distribution of these residual funds.
Procedural Posture:
- Iridium Operating LLC and its related entities filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York.
- The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors and the Lenders proposed a settlement under Bankruptcy Rule 9019.
- Motorola, Inc., an administrative creditor, objected to the proposed settlement.
- The bankruptcy court held a hearing and entered an order approving the settlement.
- Motorola (appellant) appealed the bankruptcy court's order to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
- The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's approval of the settlement.
- Motorola (appellant) appealed the district court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a pre-plan Chapter 11 bankruptcy settlement violate the 'fair and equitable' standard if it distributes estate property to junior creditors before a senior administrative creditor is paid in full?
Opinions:
Majority - Wesley
No, a pre-plan settlement is not automatically invalid if it deviates from the absolute priority rule, but such a deviation requires specific justification. While a rigid, per se application of the absolute priority rule to pre-plan settlements is inappropriate, compliance with the Code's priority scheme must be the most important factor in determining if a settlement is 'fair and equitable' under Rule 9019. The court rejected the Fifth Circuit's strict rule from In re AWECO, finding it too inflexible for the dynamic realities of bankruptcy, where the value of claims and assets is often uncertain before a reorganization plan. The court found that using estate funds to pursue a valuable claim against Motorola was a proper business justification. However, the settlement's provision to distribute any residual litigation funds to junior unsecured creditors, thereby skipping a senior creditor like Motorola, violates the priority rule. Because the parties offered no justification for this specific deviation, the court could not approve it. The case is remanded for the bankruptcy court to assess whether a credible justification for this deviation exists.
Analysis:
This decision carves out a middle ground between a strict application of the absolute priority rule to pre-plan settlements and a complete disregard for it. By rejecting the Fifth Circuit's rigid AWECO rule, the Second Circuit provides bankruptcy courts with greater flexibility to approve practical, value-maximizing settlements that may not perfectly align with the priority scheme. However, by making priority the 'most important factor' and requiring clear justification for any deviation, the court reinforces the rule's core purpose of protecting creditor expectations. This standard balances the need for efficient estate administration with the fundamental principles of creditor hierarchy, creating a new, influential framework for evaluating settlements outside a formal reorganization plan.
