United States: Momentive: Case Update

As an update to our prior blog post, on May 4, 2015, Vincent Briccetti, United States District Court Judge for the Southern District of New York, issued a decision affirming the Bankruptcy Court's order confirming Momentive's cramdown chapter 11 plan. The decision was long awaited with the parties having completed briefing in December 2014.

Judge Briccetti followed the reasoning of the Bankruptcy Court and affirmed the use of the "formula" approach to determine the cramdown interest rate. Under the formula approach, the cramdown interest rate is equal to the sum of a "risk free" base rate (such as the prime rate) plus a risk margin of 1-3%. Judge Briccetti rejected the "efficient market" approach advocated by the first and 1.5 lien noteholders, affirming the view that rates should not include any profit to secured creditors. Under the efficient market approach, the cramdown interest rate is based on the interest rate the market would pay on such a loan.

Although the Supreme Court in Till and the Second Circuit in Valenti previously adopted the formula approach, those cases were decided in the context of chapter 13 debtors. Citing to Till and Valenti, Judge Briccetti observed that "Congress intended bankruptcy judges and trustees to follow essentially the same approach when choosing an appropriate interest rate" and that "the Bankruptcy Code does not intend to put creditors in the same position they would have been in had they arranged a new loan." According to Judge Briccetti, the first and 1.5 lien noteholders provided "no good reason" why the cramdown interest rate calculation should differentiate between chapter 11 and 13 debtors.

In addition, Judge Briccetti affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's determination that Momentive was not obligated to pay a make-whole premium upon the repayment of the first and 1.5 lien debt. Based on the language of the first and 1.5 lien note indentures, Judge Briccetti held that Momentive's bankruptcy triggered an automatic acceleration of the debt and that under New York law (which governed the indentures), "a lender forfeits the right to a prepayment consideration by accelerating the balance of the loan. The rationale most commonly cited for this rule is that acceleration of the debt advances the maturity date of the loan, and any subsequent payment by definition cannot be a prepayment." Although the noteholders could have contracted around this general rule, Judge Briccetti found that the indentures did not "clearly and unambiguously call for the payment of the make-whole premium upon acceleration of debt."

Judge Briccetti also affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's holding that the language of the indenture governing the senior subordinated notes subordinated the claims of senior secured noteholders to the deficiency claims of second lien noteholders. Thus, the plan—which provided no distributions to senior subordinated noteholders—was "fair and equitable" under section 1129(b) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Because Judge Briccetti affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's order confirming Momentive's plan, he did not address the merits of Momentive's motion to dismiss the noteholders' appeals on equitable mootness grounds.

As noted in our prior blog post, we expect that Judge Briccetti's decision will be appealed to the Second Circuit and possibly beyond. If these issues are put before the Second Circuit, the court will have an opportunity to clarify the scope of its holding in Valenti and possibly take-up another make-whole premium dispute after ruling on the subject in 2013 in the AMR chapter 11 bankruptcy.

Please see the original post from February 25, 2015, below.

Momentive: Where does it stand?

On September 9, 2014, following a hotly contested four-day confirmation hearing, Robert Drain, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge for the Southern District of New York, issued a bench ruling approving Momentive's chapter 11 plan. See In re MPM Silicones, LLC, No. 14-22503-rdd, 2014 Bankr. LEXIS 3926 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Sept. 9, 2014).Momentive's plan provided for the company's first and 1.5 lien noteholders to receive new notes with extended maturities at a reduced interest rate, while fully equitizing the second lien noteholders. Holders of senior subordinated notes did not receive any recovery. At the heart of the plan was a $600 million rights offering backstopped by the second lien noteholders.

In approving the plan, Judge Drain overruled objections filed by trustees for the first and 1.5 lien noteholders who argued that the plan was not "fair and equitable" because the proposed cramdown interest rate for each of the new notes was below the applicable market rate. The first and 1.5 lien noteholders also asserted that a make-whole premium would have been due upon a repayment of the debt pursuant to language in the first and 1.5 lien note indentures. The trustee representing holders of senior subordinated notes also objected to the plan on the grounds that it impermissibly subordinated the claims of senior subordinated noteholders to the deficiency claims of second lien noteholders, which resulted in the senior subordinated noteholders not receiving any recovery. The trustee for the senior subordinated notes also argued that the plan violated the absolute priority rule because Momentive and its debtor-subsidiaries retained intercompany interests even though the senior subordinated notes were not paid in full.

Although Judge Drain's bench decision touched on several important confirmation topics, the ruling was controversial because it explicitly rejected a market-based approach to calculating the cramdown interest rate and endorsed the "formula approach" espoused in the chapter 13 cases Till v. SCS Credit Corp., 541 U.S. 465 (2004) and In re Valenti, 105 F.3d 55 (2d Cir. 1997). Under the formula approach, the debtor must, in a cram-down scenario, provide a secured creditor with new notes bearing interest equal to a "risk free" base rate (such as the prime rate) plus a risk adjustment of 1-3%. Importantly, he found while market pricing includes an element of profit, the Bankruptcy Code has no such requirement and thus the risk adjustment should be just that – an adjustment that reflects the ultimate risk of nonpayment, and not a mechanism to recover opportunity costs. Judge Drain's decision conflicts with decisions issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth and Sixth Circuits as well as some lower court opinions. In economic terms, Momentive's oversecured first and 1.5 lien noteholders lost nearly $100 million in trading value for their existing notes because the cramdown interest rate was calculated using the formula approach versus a market rate.

Following his confirmation decision, Judge Drain denied the creditors' immediate request for a stay of consummation of the plan pending appeal. Whether a stay pending appeal is granted is committed to the discretion of the judge after considering the following factors: (i) whether the movant will suffer irreparable injury absent a stay, (ii) whether a party will suffer substantial injury if a stay is issued, (iii) whether the movant has demonstrated a substantial possibility of success on appeal, and (iv) the public interest that may be affected. On September 11, 2014, Judge Drain formally entered an order confirming Momentive's plan, prompting the trustees for the first and 1.5 lien noteholders as well as the trustee for the senior subordinated noteholders to file an appeal with the district court and once again seek a stay pending appeal.

Proceedings before District Court and Second Circuit

On September 22, 2014, Vincent Briccetti, U.S. District Court Judge for the Southern District of New York, issued a bench ruling where he also declined to issue a stay pending the appeal. Judge Briccetti held that a stay should not be imposed primarily because the creditors did not demonstrate a "substantial possibility of success on appeal" and that they would suffer irreparable harm absent a stay.

As to the creditor's possibility of success on appeal, Judge Briccetti stated that Judge Drain's decision regarding the appropriate cramdown interest rate was "based on a sensible reading of both Till and Valenti." He also found, solely for purposes of whether a stay should be granted, that Judge Drain was likely correct with respect to his rulings on the make-whole premium and interpretation of the subordination clause in the senior subordinated notes indenture. Judge Briccetti was careful to note that he was not "making any conclusions on the merits of the underlying disputes," but that the appellants did not demonstrate a "substantial possibility" that Judge Drain ruled incorrectly.

In addition, Judge Briccetti found that the appellants failed to demonstrate that they would be irreparable injured absent the stay. He acknowledged that although an appeal is presumed equitably moot where a debtor's plan is substantially consummated (e.g., when a plan becomes effective), he believed that "the risk of equitable mootness" was "not very great" because, among other things, it is possible to "recalibrate" consideration provided to the second lien noteholders. While the creditors failed to demonstrate irreparable injury, Judge Briccetti believed that the opposite was true for the debtors. Specifically, he observed that a stay could cause Momentive to lose $600 million in proceeds from the rights offering and accrue incremental costs during the pendency of the stay such as interest, professional fees and other expenses.

At the same hearing, the first and 1.5 lien noteholders further sought to certify a direct appeal of the merits of Judge Drain's confirmation ruling to the U.S Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Judge Briccetti denied the request because, among other things, the questions presented on appeal presented a mixed question of fact and law and there was no immediate need for appellate review. As a last resort, the creditors sought a stay from the Second Circuit and their request was also denied in brief written orders.

What's Next?

In the absence of a stay, Momentive's plan became effective on October 24, 2014, resulting in, among other things, the consummation of a rights offering, the issuance of new equity in the reorganized company and the distribution of new notes to the first and 1.5 lien noteholders. But that is not the end of Momentive's journey through bankruptcy. All of Momentive's objecting creditors have continued to press their appeal with the district court arguing that Judge Drain's confirmation ruling was incorrectly decided on the merits. Also pending before Judge Briccetti is a motion filed by Momentive to dismiss the appeals on equitable mootness grounds (notwithstanding Judge Briccetti prior finding that equitable mootness was unlikely). These issues have been fully briefed and a decision could be entered by Judge Briccetti without oral argument.

Although Judge Briccetti's basis for denying a stay pending appeal strongly suggests that he agrees with Judge Drain's interpretation of the underlying issues on appeal, it is important to remember that the standard for review on appeal differs greatly from the standard for deciding a stay pending appeal. Specifically, on appeal, a bankruptcy court's legal conclusions are subject to a de novo standard of review, meaning that no deference is given to the bankruptcy court's determinations in that regard. Thus, there is no certainty that Judge Drain's decisions will be affirmed. Moreover, given the significant economic impact of this decision on the appellants, it is possible that this issue may be appealed to the Second Circuit and beyond.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Events from this Firm
21 Nov 2018, Seminar, New York, United States

“Big data” is changing our economy. It has allowed Amazon, Google, Facebook and many others to redesign traditional business models and to create new or improved products and services with greater utility for consumers and often at very little cost.

24 Nov 2018, Speaking Engagement, New York, United States

Each year, the New York Region of IFA hosts a panel and reception at the NYU Law School. This year’s panel will include a discussion of the TCJA international provisions.

27 Nov 2018, Speaking Engagement, New York, United States

Employment Managing Associates, Alexandra Stathpoulos and Alexandra Heifetz are presenting at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law’s FORM+FUND Series.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions