Oregon Bankruptcy Court Denies Administrative Priority Status to Potential DIP Lender for Breakup Fee Claim

by Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP

On April 8, 2014, Chief Bankruptcy Judge Frank R. Alley, III for the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Oregon found that Sunstone Business Finance, LLC's claim against debtor C&K Market, Inc. did not constitute an administrative expense claim.  The claim arose from a breakup fee for proposed DIP financing after C&K selected an alternative DIP lender. 

The Court denied Sunstone's request for an administrative claim for two reasons.  First, the Court found that the breakup fee did not arise from a transaction with a debtor in possession because the parties executed the DIP term sheet prepetition.  Second, the Court found that Sunstone, as a potential lender, did not provide a direct and substantial benefit to the estate because the alleged benefits either occurred prepetition or were too indirect and intangible to qualify for priority treatment.  If this opinion were to gain acceptance beyond this case, it could chill prepetition offers to serve as new DIP lenders, or possibly even affect the market for stalking horse bidders in a section 363 sale.  In re C&K Market, Inc., No. 13-64561-fra11 (Bankr. D. Or. Apr. 8, 2014) [Dkt. No. 786].


Prior to its chapter 11 filing, C&K owned and operated approximately 60 grocery stores and pharmacies in Oregon and California.  To finance its prepetition operations, C&K borrowed more than $64 million from US Bank and certain mezzanine lenders.  Anticipating the need for reorganization, C&K entered into negotiations with US Bank to obtain DIP financing.  Initial negotiations failed.  With a bankruptcy looming, C&K turned to alternative sources of financing.

Sunstone emerged as the only party willing to offer DIP financing.  Prepetition, the parties executed a term sheet that provided for, among other things, a DIP loan of $5-7.5 million at an interest rate of the prime rate plus 10% for "all outstanding obligations."  C&K agreed to pay Sunstone a breakup fee of $250,000 in the event the loan did not close due to C&K finding other financing.  The DIP term sheet also provided that Sunstone's commitment would remain enforceable until the Court approved a final order authorizing alternative DIP financing.  C&K further agreed to support any motion filed by Sunstone for payment of the breakup fee as an administrative expense. 

Subsequently, C&K and US Bank agreed to DIP financing with an interest rate well below the interest rate provided by Sunstone.  C&K filed for bankruptcy on November 19, 2013 and eventually received final approval of the US Bank DIP financing, triggering Sunstone's right to receive a breakup fee under the DIP term sheet.  Sunstone filed a proof of claim and motioned the Court to classify the breakup fee as an administrative expense claim.  The creditors' committee, mezzanine lenders and US Bank objected to Sunstone's request on the grounds that Sunstone did not have an allowable claim, and even if it did, such claim was not entitled to administrative priority.   


The Court considered two key issues.  First, did Sunstone have an allowable claim?  If so, was that claim entitled to administrative expense priority under section 503 of the Bankruptcy Code or was it merely a general unsecured claim.  Generally, administrative claims are paid in full upon the confirmation of a bankruptcy plan, whereas general unsecured claims usually receive modest recoveries, at best.

The Court held that Sunstone had an allowable prepetition claim for the breakup fee because, among other things, the DIP term sheet was a legally enforceable contract between C&K and Sunstone.  The objecting parties argued that Sunstone's claim should be denied for a number of reasons, including that the breakup fee constituted an avoidable fraudulent transfer and the DIP term sheet was vague and illusory.  The Court found none of these arguments persuasive and observed that the DIP term sheet "evidenced an intent by the parties to enter into a contract" based on the terms contained therein.   

Of more significance, the Court held that the breakup fee was not entitled to administrative priority.  Sunstone first argued that its claim was entitled to administrative priority under section 503(b)(1)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code because the breakup fee represented "the actual, necessary costs and expense of preserving the estate."  Specifically, Sunstone argued that the DIP term sheet provided a substantial benefit to the estate because it ensured C&K's "smooth and successful launching of its bankruptcy case" and "softened" lending terms ultimately provided by US Bank. 

The Court disagreed. Citing to established Ninth Circuit precedent, the Court stated that a claim is entitled to administrative expense priority under section 503(b)(1)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code if it (1) arose from a transaction with the debtor in possession as opposed to the preceding entity and (2) directly and substantially benefitted the estate.  The Court found that Sunstone's breakup fee did not satisfy either condition for two reasons.   

First, the Court held that because the DIP term sheet "was an agreement between Sunstone and [a] prepetition non-debtor entity"; the term sheet did not arise from a "transaction with [a] debtor-in-possession."  Second, the transaction did not provide a "direct and substantial" benefit to the estate.  The Court found no evidence that the Sunstone term sheet caused US Bank to lend on more favorable terms, stating that there was "no evidence that providing an alternative, if costly, loan facility  . . . provided more than an incidental benefit to the estate."  In addition, the Court concluded that Sunstone did not provide a "direct and substantial" benefit to the estate by agreeing to hold open its offer to extend DIP financing until the Court entered a final order approving US Bank's DIP loan.  Any benefit provided by Sunstone "was too indirect and intangible to qualify for priority treatment." 

The Court also rejected Sunstone's argument that its claim should be entitled to administrative priority under section 503(b)(3)(D) of the Bankruptcy Code as an "actual, necessary expense" incurred "in making a substantial contribution" to C&K's bankruptcy case.  The Court held that section 503(b)(3)(D) was inapplicable because the breakup fee was not an actual expense of Sunstone.  Indeed, the breakup fee was "not an expense at all."

Finally, Sunstone argued that breakup fees should be allowed to encourage competing bids by lenders.  The Court stated that the limitations discussed above surrounding administrative claims "reflects a Congressional policy of promoting equal distribution among creditors.  Moreover, restrictions on breakup fees are just as likely to promote competition and broader negotiations and less expensive credit for borrowers, by encouraging lenders to submit proposals more likely to be accepted by debtors, other creditors, and ultimately, bankruptcy courts."


If embraced outside the District of Oregon, Judge Alley's decision casts doubt on the ability to be paid in full as an administrative creditor with respect to a breakup fee that a debtor might agree to prepetition.   Thus, if the opinion were to gain acceptance beyond this case, Judge Alley's opinion could chill prepetition offers to serve as new DIP lenders, or possibly even as stalking horse bidders in a section 363 sale. 

One potential way to prevent this result would be to execute final agreements surrounding DIP financing or sale terms immediately after the filing of a chapter 11 case, ensuring that the counterparty is a debtor in possession and thus that the claim is more likely to constitute an administrative claim rather than a general unsecured claim.  This would solve the issue of whether the debtor in possession incurred the expense (though of course here, Sunstone would not have received the breakup fee at all, assuming US Bank would have agreed to provide the alternative funding prepetition). 

It is difficult to understand why the judge did not believe the Sunstone financing benefitted the debtor's estate.  In a typical case, a bidder proposing to provide DIP financing would provide value to the estate, even if (especially if) another previously reluctant bidder topped the initial proposed financing.  This is similar to a stalking horse bidder that is typically entitled to a breakup fee if another bidder tops its initial bid.  Such entities have clearly helped facilitate the bankruptcy and a recovery to creditors.  Without full knowledge of the process in this case, it is unclear why the judge did not give this value sufficient attention.  However, the ruling emphasizes the need for lenders to present evidence of the value provided by their proposed loan and potentially include a description (typically in the preamble) of such value in the loan agreement.

A potential stalking horse in a 363 sale should protect itself by ensuring that the proposed DIP lenders agree to provide a carveout from the DIP loan to pay the breakup fee.  Potential lenders seeking a breakup fee would be unlikely to benefit similarly.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP

Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.