Rievman v. Burlington Northern Railroad
618 F. Supp. 592, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18664 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under New York law, a debtor and a mortgage trustee may not substitute the collateral securing a bond if the mortgage indenture does not expressly provide for such a substitution, even if the substituted collateral does not impair, and may even enhance, the bondholders' financial security.
Facts:
- In 1896, the Northern Pacific Railway Company issued two series of long-term, non-callable bonds maturing in 1997 and 2047.
- The bonds were secured by collateral that included railroad properties and millions of acres of land grants known as the 'Resource Properties'.
- The mortgage indentures governing the bonds did not contain any provision allowing for the substitution of collateral or the release of property from the mortgage liens without the consent of all bondholders.
- Burlington Northern Railroad Company ('Railroad') succeeded Northern Pacific as the obligor on the bonds.
- Over time, the Resource Properties appreciated in value to billions of dollars, far exceeding the approximately $117.7 million face value of the outstanding bonds.
- This appreciation gave the bonds a 'hold up' value, as the bondholders could prevent the Railroad from developing or selling the valuable land.
- The Railroad and the bond trustees entered into 'Letter Agreements' to implement a 'Deposit Plan' to free the Resource Properties from the mortgage liens.
- Under the plan, the Railroad would place sufficient U.S. government securities in an irrevocable trust to guarantee all future principal and interest payments on the bonds, in exchange for the trustees releasing the lien on the Resource Properties.
Procedural Posture:
- A class of bondholders filed suit against the Burlington Northern Railroad Company and the bond trustees in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
- The plaintiffs moved for class certification on behalf of all bondholders.
- The plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction to stop the defendants from implementing the Letter Agreements, releasing the Resource Properties from the mortgage liens, and proceeding with an associated tender offer.
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 plan to substitute the original collateral securing non-callable bonds with U.S. government securities violate the bondholders' contractual rights when the mortgage agreement does not provide for such a substitution, even if the new collateral fully guarantees payment of principal and interest?
Opinions:
Majority - Carter, J.
Yes, a plan to substitute collateral without an express provision in the mortgage agreement violates the bondholders' contractual rights. The court reasoned that bondholders possess a right to stand upon the explicit terms of their contract, which cannot be unilaterally altered by the debtor and the trustee. Relying on New York precedent, particularly Colorado & Southern Railway Co. v. Blair, the court determined that mortgage trustees have no inherent power to change, sell, or compromise the security unless such authority is expressly granted by the trust instrument. This rule applies even if the substitution would not impair the bondholders' financial security; the bondholders contracted for a specific form of collateral and the associated rights, including the bargaining leverage or 'hold up' value, which cannot be extinguished without their consent.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the principle of strict adherence to the terms of a contract, particularly in the context of bond indentures under New York law. It clarifies that a bondholder's contractual rights extend beyond the mere right to payment and include all bargained-for terms, such as the specific collateral securing the debt. The ruling protects the economic value of restrictive covenants in old indentures, ensuring that bondholders retain the leverage ('hold up' value) that such terms create. Consequently, debtors seeking to free up valuable assets encumbered by such agreements cannot unilaterally substitute collateral, even with superior security, and must instead negotiate directly with the bondholders to amend the original contract.
