Texas two-step bankruptcy

Last updated

A Texas two-step bankruptcy is a two-step bankruptcy strategy under US bankruptcy law in which a solvent parent company spins off liabilities into a new company, and then has that new company declare bankruptcy. [1] In the first step, the parent company undergoes a Texas divisive merger, which allows companies to split off their liabilities from their assets. In the second step, the newly created spin-off declares a chapter 11 bankruptcy, usually in North Carolina, where bankruptcy courts are perceived to be more open to this scheme. The Texas two-step allows solvent companies to shield their assets from litigants using protections that are normally reserved for bankrupt companies. [1] The goal of a Texas two-step is for the parent company to gain a third-party release of all liabilities it assigned to its spinoff, thus preventing litigants from pursuing those claims against the parent. [1] [2] [3]

Contents

Texas divisive merger

Typically, a corporate merger involves two entities joining together so that the assets and liabilities of both become the assets and liabilities of the new, merged company. A Texas divisive merger achieves the opposite result: instead of two companies joining to become one, one company splits to become two. Corporate divisions or spin-offs are allowed in many jurisdictions, but the Texas divisive merger is distinctive because it treats the division as a merger. [1] Notably, in a Texas two-step bankruptcy the parent company still maintains control over the spin-off by appointing its board and executives. [1]

Subsequent Chapter 11 bankruptcy

Once the parent company has created a spin-off containing the parent's former liabilities, the spin-off declares chapter 11 bankruptcy but remains in control as a debtor in possession. The chapter 11 bankruptcy automatically stays (halts) litigation against the spin-off, [2] and the spin-off can further move to stay all litigation against its parent, which courts permit when the bankrupt company shows that litigation against the third party (here the parent) substantially harms the debtor's ability to complete a bankruptcy plan. [1] However, while the spin-off is under the oversight of the bankruptcy court, the parent company can continue to operate normally. For instance, when Johnson & Johnson entered into a Texas two-step through its spin-off LTL Management LLC, J&J's other divisions continued to operate unencumbered, and J&J maintained its AAA credit rating. [4]

The final goal of a company doing a Texas two-step is to get the court to approve a bankruptcy plan that includes a third-party release for the parent. Such a release prevents all litigants from recovering for their harms from the parent company. [1] Third-party releases are controversial in their own right, but are explicitly allowed in asbestos-related bankruptcies, and have been used successfully in non-asbestos cases. [1] [5]

Cases

While Texas divisive mergers have existed since 1989, only four companies have employed them to facilitate a subsequent bankruptcy to shield the parent company from tort liabilities as part of a Texas two-step. [5] All four companies were represented by law firm Jones Day. [4]

In 2017, Koch Industries-owned Georgia-Pacific spun off its liabilities from paper and building products that contained asbestos into a new entity called Bestwall through a Texas divisive merger. Bestwall declared bankruptcy in North Carolina three months later. [4]

In 2019, Saint-Gobain similarly spun off liabilities from building products produced by its North American subsidiary CertainTeed that contained asbestos into DBMP, which had no operations. [6] DBMP filed for bankruptcy in North Carolina three months later. [1] [3]

In 2020, Trane Technologies followed the same pattern and spun off its asbestos-related liabilities into Aldrich Pump and Murray Boiler, both of which declared bankruptcy seven weeks later in North Carolina. [1] [7]

In 2021, Johnson & Johnson began the largest Texas two-step bankruptcy when it created LTL Management LLC to hold its asbestos-containing talc powder liabilities via a Texas divisive merger. On October 14, 2021, LTL Management LLC declared bankruptcy in North Carolina. [4] [8] On January 30, 2023 the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals ruled after an appeal that LTL's bankruptcy should be dismissed on the grounds that LTL was not in financial distress, reversing a previous ruling by the Bankruptcy Court. [9] [10] [11] On April 4, 2023, LTL filed for a second bankruptcy. [12] On July 28, 2023, Chief Judge Michael Kaplan of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in New Jersey dismissed the second bankruptcy. [13]

Criticism

Plaintiffs, legal scholars, and some legislators have criticized Texas two-steps as abuses of the bankruptcy system designed to prevent plaintiffs from recovering for their harms. [3]

Fraudulent transfer

A fraudulent transfer is an illegal attempt to avoid paying a debt by transferring money to another person or entity. Critics have argued that a Texas divisive merger meets the definition of a fraudulent transfer when done in preparation for bankruptcy, because the divisive merger causes the spin-off to become insolvent (unable to pay its debts). [1] Fraudulent transfers are prohibited by US bankruptcy laws. However, scholars have noted several obstacles to creditors bringing fraudulent transfer claims in bankruptcy. First, the Texas divisive merger law defines a divisive merger as occurring without "any transfer or assignment". [1] Without a transfer, there can be no fraudulent transfer. However, this issue has never been fully litigated, and courts could conclude that a Texas divisive merger meets the definition of a transfer regardless of the language in the law. [1]

Second, scholars also note that the larger hurdle to creditors may actually be the cost and delay of litigating a fraudulent transfer claim. [1] Third, fraudulent transfer claims belong in the first instance to the bankrupt entity, so to pursue such a claim the executives of the bankrupt spin-off would have to agree to sue the parent company, the same parent company that installed those executives in the first place. [1] This increases the cost to creditors of litigating the transfer even more, and, together with the uncertainty about whether a Texas divisive merger constitutes a transfer in the first place, could result in creditors accepting a discounted settlement offer (which would guarantee payment and avoid the risks and costs of lengthy litigation). [1]

Bad-faith bankruptcy

While US bankruptcy law does not explicitly define bankruptcy "in bad faith", courts have routinely applied certain standards, and creditors can bring motions to dismiss bankruptcies for bad faith. Types of bad-faith bankruptcies include those in which a new company is created for the purpose of filing bankruptcy, and when a company uses bankruptcy for an improper purpose, such as reducing debts that it would be able to pay outside of bankruptcy. [1] When a court rules that a bankruptcy was filed in bad faith and dismisses it, the company loses the protections of bankruptcy and cannot discharge its liabilities. [1]

Texas two-step proponents, like Johnson & Johnson and its lawyers, have argued that Texas two-steps are not inherently bad-faith, and that in the context of mass-tort litigation bankruptcy is fairest way to address large numbers of personal injury claims. Unlike in traditional courts hearing cases brought by many different people, bankruptcies must treat all similar claimants similarly.

In Johnson & Johnson's Texas two-step, bankruptcy judge Michael Kaplan ruled that handling complex litigation brought by many different plaintiffs was a legitimate use of bankruptcy. [4] [14] Many of those plaintiffs disagreed and argued that Johnson & Johnson's goal was to protect itself from having to pay plaintiffs for the injuries it caused, [2] and together with the US government appealed the ruling to the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals. [4] [14] The 3rd Circuit overturned the bankruptcy court's decision and ruled that LTL Management LLC's bankruptcy should be dismissed on the grounds that it was not filed in good faith, because LTL's funding agreement with Johnson & Johnson meant that LTL was never in financial distress. [9] [10]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Talc</span> Hydrated magnesium phyllosilicate mineral

Talc, or talcum, is a clay mineral composed of hydrated magnesium silicate, with the chemical formula Mg3Si4O10(OH)2. Talc in powdered form, often combined with corn starch, is used as baby powder. This mineral is used as a thickening agent and lubricant. It is an ingredient in ceramics, paints, and roofing material. It is a main ingredient in many cosmetics. It occurs as foliated to fibrous masses, and in an exceptionally rare crystal form. It has a perfect basal cleavage and an uneven flat fracture, and it is foliated with a two-dimensional platy form.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Johnson & Johnson</span> American multinational pharmaceutical and consumer goods corporation

Johnson & Johnson (J&J) is an American multinational, pharmaceutical, and medical technologies corporation headquartered in New Brunswick, New Jersey, and publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange. Its common stock is a component of the Dow Jones Industrial Average, and the company is ranked No. 40 on the 2023 Fortune 500 list of the largest United States corporations. Johnson & Johnson has a global workforce of approximately 130,000 employees who are led by the company’s current chairman and chief executive officer, Joaquin Duato.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bankruptcy in the United States</span> Overview of bankruptcy in the United States of America

In the United States, bankruptcy is largely governed by federal law, commonly referred to as the "Bankruptcy Code" ("Code"). The United States Constitution authorizes Congress to enact "uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States". Congress has exercised this authority several times since 1801, including through adoption of the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978, as amended, codified in Title 11 of the United States Code and the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (BAPCPA).

A fraudulent conveyance or fraudulent transfer is the transfer of property to another party to prevent, hinder, or delay the collection of a debt owed by or incumbent on the party making the transfer, sometimes by rendering the transferring party insolvent. It is generally treated as a civil cause of action that arises in debtor/creditor relations, typically brought by creditors or by bankruptcy trustees against insolvent debtors, but in some jurisdictions there is potential for criminal prosecution.

A civil conspiracy is a form of conspiracy involving an agreement between two or more parties to deprive a third party of legal rights or deceive a third party to obtain an illegal objective. A form of collusion, a conspiracy may also refer to a group of people who make an agreement to form a partnership in which each member becomes the agent or partner of every other member and engage in planning or agreeing to commit some act. It is not necessary that the conspirators be involved in all stages of planning or be aware of all details. Any voluntary agreement and some overt act by one conspirator in furtherance of the plan are the main elements necessary to prove a conspiracy.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Imerys</span> French multinational company specializing in the production of industrial minerals

IMERYS S.A. is a French multinational company which specialises in the production and processing of industrial minerals. The main headquarter is located in Paris and is a constituent of the CAC Mid 60 index.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Tort reform</span> Legal reforms aimed at reducing tort litigation

Tort reform consists of changes in the civil justice system in common law countries that aim to reduce the ability of plaintiffs to bring tort litigation or to reduce damages they can receive. Such changes are generally justified under the grounds that litigation is an inefficient means to compensate plaintiffs; that tort law permits frivolous or otherwise undesirable litigation to crowd the court system; or that the fear of litigation can serve to curtail innovation, raise the cost of consumer goods or insurance premiums for suppliers of services, and increase legal costs for businesses. Tort reform has primarily been prominent in common law jurisdictions, where criticism of judge-made rules regarding tort actions manifests in calls for statutory reform by the legislature.

Motley Rice LLC is an American plaintiffs' litigation firm headquartered in Mount Pleasant, South Carolina.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">W. Mark Lanier</span> American lawyer

William Mark Lanier is an American trial lawyer and founder and CEO of the Lanier Law Firm. He has led a number of high profile product litigation suits resulting in billions of dollars in damages, including Johnson & Johnson baby powder and Merck & Co.'s Vioxx drug.

<i>In re Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC</i>

In re Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC is a court case heard in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina which involves the entry into bankruptcy proceedings by Garlock Sealing Technologies, once a manufacturer of coated asbestos gaskets, as a result of potential liability from current and future settlements. The plaintiffs were over 4,000 asbestos victims suffering from mesothelioma, including many Navy veterans, as well as an unknown number of future mesothelioma victims. As noted by the court, mesothelioma "is always fatal, causing death essentially by suffocation within about eighteen months of diagnosis" and involves "a horrific death."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Johnson's Baby</span> American cosmetics brand

Johnson's Baby is an American brand of baby cosmetics and skin care products owned by Kenvue. The brand was introduced in 1893 with Johnson's Baby Powder. The product line consists of baby powder, shampoos, body lotions, massage oil, shower gels and baby wipes.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Furthering Asbestos Claims Transparency Act of 2015</span>

The Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency (FACT) Act of 2015 is a bill introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by Congressman Blake Farenthold that would require asbestos trusts in the United States to file quarterly reports about the payouts they make and personal information on the victims who receive them in a publicly accessible database. The legislation would also allow defendant corporations in asbestos cases to demand information from the trusts for any reason.

Weitz & Luxenberg P.C. is a large personal injury and medical malpractice law firm headquartered in New York, specializing in asbestos litigation. The firm also specializes in medical malpractice, consumer protection, and environmental protection litigation.

Levy Konigsberg is an American-based law firm that was established in 1985. The company is known for a number of high-profile cases in the United States. Its practice areas include asbestos litigation, qui tam, lead poisoning, sexual abuse, tobacco litigation, medical malpractice, and negligence. In 2015, Levy Konigsberg was recognized as one of the 50 Law Firms in the 2015 Elite Trial Lawyers list by The National Law Journal.

Simon Greenstone Panatier is a law firm based in Dallas, Texas, specializing in personal injury litigation and tort liability.

Within the United States, the use of asbestos is limited by state and federal regulations and legislation. Improper use of asbestos and injury from exposure is addressed through administrative action, litigation, and criminal prosecution. Injury claims arising from asbestos exposure may be tried as mass torts.

Reid Collins & Tsai LLP is a national trial law firm with offices in New York, Austin, Dallas, Wilmington, and Washington, D.C. The firm represents plaintiffs in complex commercial litigation on a mixed-fee or contingency-fee basis.

Asbestos bankruptcy trusts are trusts established by firms that have filed for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code to pay personal injury claims caused by exposure to asbestos. At least 56 such trusts were established from the mid-1970s to 2011.

Nachawati Law Group is an American plaintiffs' law firm headquartered in Dallas. The law firm was founded in 2006 by Bryan Fears and Majed Nachawati. The firm rebranded in October 2022 following the departure of Bryan Fears, who formed Fears Law. The firm is active in mass tort and multidistrict litigation on behalf of individuals and public entities.

Kenvue Inc. is an American consumer health company. Formerly the Consumer Healthcare division of Johnson & Johnson, Kenvue is the proprietor of well-known brands such as Aveeno, Band-Aid, Benadryl, Zyrtec, Johnson's, Listerine, Mylanta, Neutrogena, Tylenol, and Visine.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Francus, Michael (June 11, 2022). "Texas Two-Stepping Out of Bankruptcy". Michigan Law Review Online . 120: 28–50. Archived from the original on September 4, 2022. Retrieved September 4, 2022.
  2. 1 2 3 Kinel, Norman (February 22, 2022). "The "Texas Two-Step" Firestorm: This Is No Dance!". The National Law Review. Archived from the original on September 4, 2022. Retrieved September 4, 2022.
  3. 1 2 3 Goldstein, Samantha (May 3, 2022). "The Texas Two-Step: A Controversial Bankruptcy Dance". University of Miami Law Review. Archived from the original on September 4, 2022. Retrieved September 4, 2022.
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Cep, Casey (September 12, 2022). "Johnson & Johnson and a New War on Consumer Protection". The New Yorker . Archived from the original on January 15, 2023. Retrieved January 21, 2023.
  5. 1 2 Parikh, Samir (January 1, 2022). "Mass Exploitation". University of Pennsylvania Law Review Online . 170 (1): 53–72. ISSN   1942-8537. Archived from the original on October 27, 2022. Retrieved January 21, 2023.
  6. ↑ Levine, Dan; Spector, Mike (June 23, 2022). "How a bankruptcy innovation halted sick plaintiffs' lawsuits". Reuters . Archived from the original on February 9, 2023. Retrieved February 9, 2023.
  7. ↑ Gill, Daniel (March 2, 2022). "Trane Technologies' Bankrupt Spinoffs Ask to Curb Committee Power". Bloomberg Law. Archived from the original on January 21, 2023. Retrieved January 21, 2023.
  8. ↑ Spector, Mike; Levine, Dan; Spector, Mike (October 15, 2021). "J&J puts talc liabilities into bankruptcy". Reuters. Retrieved September 28, 2023.
  9. 1 2 Hals, Tom; Spector, Mike; Levine, Dan; Hals, Tom (January 30, 2023). "U.S. court rejects J&J bankruptcy strategy for tens of thousands of talc lawsuits". Reuters . Archived from the original on January 31, 2023. Retrieved January 31, 2023.
  10. 1 2 Spector, Mike (February 14, 2023). "Judge indicates intention to dismiss J&J talc unit bankruptcy". Reuters . Archived from the original on February 15, 2023. Retrieved February 15, 2023.
  11. ↑ Knauth, Dietrich (March 31, 2023). "Johnson & Johnson unit loses bid to stay in bankruptcy during Supreme Court appeal". Reuters. Retrieved April 4, 2023.
  12. ↑ Knauth, Dietrich; Spector, Mike (April 4, 2023). "J&J unit files for second bankruptcy to pursue $8.9 billion talc settlement". Reuters. Retrieved April 4, 2023.
  13. ↑ Knauth, Dietrich (July 31, 2023). "J&J effort to resolve talc lawsuits in bankruptcy fails a second time". Reuters. Retrieved September 28, 2023.
  14. 1 2 Gill, Daniel (September 19, 2022). "J&J Talc Bankruptcy 'Bad Faith' Claims Go Before Third Circuit". Bloomberg Law. Archived from the original on December 6, 2022. Retrieved January 28, 2023.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.