Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

The Bankruptcy StrategistKickerFeaturesTopicsCommercial LawSectionsNewsLJN Newsletters

Does Rule 2019 Apply to Ad Hoc or Informal Committees?

By Daniel J. DeFranceschi
March 26, 2010

The debate over whether ad hoc or informal committees or groups of creditors or interest holders (“ad hoc committees“) must comply with Bankruptcy Rule 2019 recently intensified due to a split among several Bankruptcy Court decisions. Previously, both In re Northwest Airlines Corp., 363 B. R. 701 (Bankr. S. D. N. Y. 2007), and In re Washington Mut. Inc., 419 B. R. 271 (Bankr. D. Del. 2009) (“WaMu“) held that ad hoc committees, actively participating in a case as a committee, were subject to Rule 2019. Following these decisions, many practitioners thought the law was settled ' ad hoc committees were required to file the requisite Rule 2019 disclosures ' while others continued the practice of not filing Rule 2019 disclosures or only filing partial Rule 2019 disclosures. Fueling the debate is the decision in In re Premier Int'l Holdings, Inc., 2010 WL 198676 (Bankr. D. Del. Jan. 10, 2010) (“Six Flags“), which disagreed with Northwest and WaMu, and held that an informal committee of noteholders was not a committee representing more than one creditor by consent or operation of law and therefore not subject to Rule 2019. Thereafter, In re Philadelphia Newspapers, LLC, 2010 WL 41102 (Bankr. E. D. Pa. Feb. 4, 2010), agreed with Six Flags, evenly splitting the reported decisions.

One side of the debate argues for increased disclosure of the kind of information covered by Rule 2019, consistent with the “open kimono“ policy of the Bankruptcy Code. To these advocates, providing such information will further level the playing field, presumably allowing parties in interest to negotiate with more pertinent information at hand, thereby resulting in better and more equitable distributions to all parties in interest. On the other side of the debate are those who seek to protect their confidential and proprietary trading information, and who outside the bankruptcy context carefully guard such information from disclosure. Those on this side of the debate argue that forcing disclosure of such information would actually result in reduced participation by various parties with available financing for Chapter 11 cases, to the detriment of debtors and their estates.

This premium content is locked for LJN Newsletters subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later Image

The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.

Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar Investigations Image

This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.

The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs Image

The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.

CLE Shouldn't Be the Only Mandatory Training for Attorneys Image

Each stage of an attorney's career offers opportunities for a curriculum that addresses both the individual's and the firm's need to drive success.

A defendant in a patent infringement suit may, during discovery and prior to a <i>Markman</i> hearing, compel the plaintiff to produce claim charts, claim constructions, and element-by-element infringement analyses.