Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Yucaipa American Alliance Fund I, LP v. SBDRE LLC

Court of Chancery of Delaware

October 31, 2014

Yucaipa American Alliance Fund I, LP and Yucaipa American Alliance (Parallel) Fund I, LP, Plaintiffs,
v.
SBDRE LLC, Black Diamond Commercial Finance L.L.C., Spectrum Commercial Finance L.L.C., BDCM Opportunity Fund II, LP, Black Diamond CLO 2005-1 Ltd., and Spectrum Investment Partners, L.P., Defendants.

Submitted: June 16, 2014

Martin S. Lessner, Esq., Michael R. Nestor, Esq., Emily V. Burton, Esq., Matthew C. Bloom, Esq., YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR, LLP, Wilmington, Delaware; Attorneys for Plaintiffs.

Adam G. Landis, Esq., Rebecca L. Butcher, Esq., K. Tyler O'Connell, Esq., LANDIS RATH & COBB LLP, Wilmington, Delaware; Adam C. Harris, Esq., Robert J. Ward, Esq., David M. Hillman, Esq., SCHULTE ROTH & ZABEL LLP, New York, New York; Attorneys for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PARSONS, Vice Chancellor.

This case involves a dispute among the major lenders to a now-bankrupt company known as Allied Systems Holdings, Inc. Resolving the parties' competing positions requires navigating a maze of relevant documents: a senior credit agreement, the third amendment to that credit agreement, the related security agreement, and the limited liability company agreement of SBDRE LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“LLC”) formed by the defendant Black Diamond to acquire and realize upon the lenders' collateral.

The Court of Chancery is at least the sixth court to become involved in this controversy. An opening skirmish between the plaintiffs and a non-party to this case seeking a declaratory judgment about the validity of a purported fourth amendment to the credit agreement dragged on for two years in Georgia before those parties settled. Then, litigation in New York between the parties currently before me resulted in an opinion invalidating the same disputed fourth amendment. The Appellate Division of New York's Supreme Court affirmed that holding and the New York Court of Appeals denied further review. Meanwhile, parallel litigation moved forward in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the “Bankruptcy Court”). That litigation continues. An appeal from a significant decision of the Bankruptcy Court currently is pending before the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (the “District Court”). Amidst all of this litigation, the parties also attempted unsuccessfully to mediate their dispute.

In this case, the plaintiffs initially sought a status quo order. I denied the motion for a status quo order on December 20, 2013. This action is currently before me on Defendants' motion to dismiss or stay the complaint. For the reasons that follow, I conclude that a covenant not to sue in the third amendment to the credit agreement bars the plaintiffs from bringing several of the fourteen counts asserted in the complaint and portions of other counts. As for the claims that have survived the motion to dismiss in whole or in part, I find that resolution of those claims should be stayed pending completion of the litigation in the Bankruptcy Court.

I. BACKGROUND [1]

A. The Parties

Allied Systems Holdings, Inc. ("Allied") operated a car-hauling and car-delivery business. Allied is currently in bankruptcy proceedings. The dispute in this case revolves around Allied's debt.

Yucaipa American Alliance Fund I, LP and Yucaipa American Alliance (Parallel) Fund I, LP (together, "Plaintiffs- or "Yucaipa") are investment funds. Plaintiffs held a majority equity interest in Allied when it entered bankruptcy. Before the bankruptcy, Yucaipa also had purchased a majority of the relevant Allied debt.

Defendants BDCM Opportunity Fund II, LP, Black Diamond CLO 2005-1 LTD, and Spectrum Investment Partners, L.P. (together, "Black Diamond") are also investment funds. Black Diamond owns a significant amount of the relevant Allied debt.

Defendant Black Diamond Commercial Finance L.L.C. and Spectrum Commercial Finance, LLC (together, the "Black Diamond Agents") are entities created by Black Diamond to serve important roles under the credit agreement governing the Allied debt.

Defendant SBDRE LLC ("SBDRE") is a Delaware LLC created by Black Diamond to realize upon assets acquired from the Allied estate following a successful credit bid.

Black Diamond, the Black Diamond Agents, and SBDRE collectively comprise the "Defendants- in this case.

B. Facts

Allied emerged from its first bankruptcy in May 2007. Under the plan of reorganization, Yucaipa became the controlling stockholder. Yucaipa held no Allied debt at that time. Allied had a $265 million senior secured priority credit facility (the "Allied Debt") from a collection of lenders (the "Lenders") The Allied Debt is governed by the Amended and Restated First Lien Secured Super-Priority Debtor in Possession and Exit Credit and Guaranty Agreement (the "Credit Agreement") and the related Amended and Restated Pledge and Security Agreement (First Lien) (the "Security Agreement").

As defined in the Credit Agreement, one or more Lenders holding more than 50% of the total Allied Debt can act as the "Requisite Lender.” The Requisite Lender has the authority, in the event of a default by Allied, either to exercise the Lenders' rights or to cause the Lenders to forbear from exercising their rights under the Credit Agreement. Basically, this case is about Yucaipa's thwarted attempt to become the Requisite Lender. Under the Credit Agreement, however, Yucaipa was not an "Eligible Assignee”—one to whom the Lenders could assign their debt—and, therefore, Yucaipa could not become a Lender, much less the Requisite Lender.

After two amendments of no importance here, a majority of the Lenders agreed to Amendment No. 3 to Credit Agreement and Consent (the "Third Amendment") on April 17, 2008. The Third Amendment allowed Yucaipa to acquire some Allied Debt from the other Lenders. But, the Third Amendment imposed onerous restrictions on Yucaipa, such as limiting it to acquiring no more than 25% of the term loan debt—one of three kinds of debt recognized under the Credit Agreement—requiring Yucaipa to make capital contributions to Allied in proportion to the debt it acquired, stripping any Yucaipa-held debt of voting rights, and subjecting Yucaipa to a broadly-worded covenant not to sue. Indeed, under the Third Amendment, Yucaipa assumed the unique status of a "Restricted Sponsor Affiliate- and was not permitted to become a Lender. Given the 25% cap on the amount of Allied Debt Yucaipa could acquire, it also could not become Requisite Lender under the Third Amendment.

In February 2009, ComVest Investment Partners III, L.P. ("ComVest") acquired roughly 55% of the Allied Debt. Later that year, a majority of the Lenders approved a fourth amendment to the Credit Agreement (the "Fourth Amendment") The Fourth Amendment lifted all restrictions on Yucaipa's acquisition of Allied Debt. Following approval of the Fourth Amendment, Yucaipa purchased ComVest's lending position, thereby acquiring 55.2% of the Allied Debt. The Complaint alleges that on August 21, 2009, Yucaipa became the Requisite Lender. As such, Yucaipa purportedly gained the ability to cause the Lenders to forbear from exercising their rights in the event of a default by Allied. Given Allied's struggles following its exit from its first bankruptcy, Yucaipa apparently saw this as a valuable power. Nonetheless, in May 2012, Black Diamond filed an involuntary petition for bankruptcy against Allied in the Bankruptcy Court, and Allied entered bankruptcy a second time only five years after its first bankruptcy. The second bankruptcy proceeding is still pending.

Unfortunately for Yucaipa, the New York courts declared the Fourth Amendment void. That ruling had an important impact on the current bankruptcy litigation. The Bankruptcy Court declared Black Diamond the Requisite Lender. Thereafter, the vast majority of Allied's assets were sold to Jack Cooper Holdings Corp. (the "Jack Cooper Sale") That sale closed on December 20, 2013, and was funded on December 27, 2013. While the Jack Cooper Sale was in the works, Black Diamond, acting as Requisite Lender, made a credit bid (the "Credit Bid") for the remaining assets of Allied (the "Assets") On September 17, 2013, the Bankruptcy Court approved the Credit Bid.

In that context, the Black Diamond Agents formed SBDRE on August 20, 2013, to receive and hold the Assets that the Lenders anticipated acquiring from the Credit Bid. One part of the dispute currently before this Court involves the relationship between the Amended and Restated Limited Liability Company Agreement of SBDRE LLC (the "LLC Agreement") and the Credit Agreement. After the formation of SBDRE, on November 8, 2013, Black Diamond circulated a memorandum (the "Memo") to the Lenders. The Memo disclosed that the Black Diamond Agents, who were named in the LLC Agreement as the managing members of SBDRE, would hold the Lenders' pro rata Class A Membership Interests in SBDRE for the benefit of the Lenders.

More importantly, the Memo described the contemplated issuance of new membership interests in SBDRE (the "New Issuance") Following the New Issuance, SBDRE would have Class B and Class C Membership Interests. SBDRE issued $10 million in new Class B Membership Interests that were to receive 66.6% of the voting rights in and rights to distributions from SBDRE. The Lenders were allowed to buy up to their pro rata share of Class B Membership Interests if they subscribed to the New Issuance by November 15, 2013, one week after the Memo was circulated. Thus, for example: a Lender holding 10% of the Allied Debt would have a 10% Class A Membership Interest and had the opportunity during the New Issuance to purchase up to 10% of the Class B Member Interests for $1 million. In exchange for backstopping the New Issuance, Black Diamond granted itself all of the new Class C Membership Interests, which represented 3% of the aggregate Membership Interests in SBDRE.

Because neither Yucaipa nor any of the other Lenders participated in the New Issuance, Black Diamond now controls all of the Class B and Class C Membership Interests in addition to its pro rata share of the Class A Membership Interests. In total, Black Diamond holds approximately 70% of the aggregate Membership Interests in SBDRE. As a result of the New Issuance, the Class A Membership Interests control 30.3% of the vote and receive 30.3% of any distribution from SBDRE. The Complaint alleges that the Assets are worth more than $5 million, and that the New Issuance, therefore, unfairly diluted the Lenders' rights. Further, Yucaipa complains that it only was allowed to acquire 9.9% of the Class B Membership Interests, meaning that the New Issuance was not a true pro rata issuance in that Yucaipa had purchased 55.2% of the Allied Debt from ComVest.

Finally, there is a dispute about fees and expenses relating to the current Allied bankruptcy. On December 3, 2013, Black Diamond informed the Lenders that the Black Diamond Agents would reimburse Black Diamond, the Black Diamond Agents, and the other Lenders their reasonable fees and expenses related to Allied's bankruptcy from the proceeds of the Jack Cooper Sale, pursuant to Section 10.2 of the Credit Agreement. On December 19, after a Bankruptcy Court hearing on the matter, Black Diamond and the Black Diamond Agents caused those reimbursements to be made. The Complaint alleges, however, that Black Diamond refused to reimburse Yucaipa and instead has caused Yucaipa's fees and expenses to be held in escrow.

C. Procedural History

The procedural history of this and the other related litigation constitutes an important part of the background of the pending motion. This Section, therefore, recites that history in some detail.

1. The New York Litigation

Black Diamond filed suit against Yucaipa in New York state court in 2012 seeking a declaratory judgment that the Fourth Amendment was invalid (the "New York Litigation") The New York Supreme Court issued an opinion on March 8, 2013, in which it concluded that: (1) the previous Georgia litigation settlement did not bind Black Diamond; (2) the Fourth Amendment was invalid ab initio because, pursuant to Section 10.5 of the Credit Agreement, enacting the Fourth Amendment required the unanimous consent of all Lenders, which was not given; and (3) based on the invalidity of the Fourth Amendment, Yucaipa was not the Requisite Lender.[2]

The First Department of the New York Supreme Court's Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's opinion in all relevant respects. The Appellate Division's opinion, however, modified the trial court's opinion in that it held there was a triable issue of fact as to whether Black Diamond waived the ability to challenge Yucaipa's status as Requisite Lender.[3] The New York Court of Appeals denied further review on April 3, 2014.[4]

Despite the remaining issue of whether Black Diamond waived the ability to challenge Yucaipa's Requisite Lender status, the New York Litigation is concluded for all purposes relevant to this action. Even if Black Diamond did waive its right to challenge Yucaipa's claim to Requisite Lender status, Defendants represented to this Court that Defendant Spectrum, which also participated in the New York Litigation, objects to Yucaipa serving as Requisite Lender.[5] The Appellate Division held that Spectrum did not waive its rights to challenge Yucaipa's status.[6] Thus, because the New York courts determined that the Fourth Amendment required unanimous consent, any waiver by Black Diamond is irrelevant.

2. The Bankruptcy Action

Black Diamond brought an involuntary petition for bankruptcy against Allied in the Bankruptcy Court on May 17, 2012 (the "Bankruptcy Action") The Bankruptcy Action and related adversary proceedings remain pending before the Bankruptcy Court.[7]The Bankruptcy Court issued two rulings relevant to this case and several notable issues remain under advisement. Defendants place significant weight on a collateral estoppel argument and, in the alternative, seek a stay of this case. The Bankruptcy Court's rulings are vital to both arguments.

First, and most importantly for present purposes, the Bankruptcy Court issued an oral ruling on February 27, 2013, granting a motion to dismiss Yucaipa's cross-claims in the Bankruptcy Action.[8] The Bankruptcy Court, as one of its alternative holdings, ruled that the Third Amendment's covenant not to sue barred Yucaipa's claims.[9] I discuss this holding in greater detail below in connection with Defendants' argument that Yucaipa is collaterally estopped from re-litigating the meaning of the covenant not to sue.[10] Second, the Bankruptcy Court granted summary judgment in favor of Black Diamond, an intervenor in that case, finding them to be the Requisite Lenders under the Credit Agreement.[11]

Unlike the New York Litigation, the Bankruptcy Court's rulings remain the subject of further proceedings. Yucaipa appealed at least the summary judgment ruling to the District Court.[12] The appeal apparently was stayed for a period while the parties attempted mediation.[13] Additionally, Defendants in this case, along with other Allied creditors, are pursuing equitable subordination claims against Yucaipa in the Bankruptcy Action.[14] Yucaipa has suggested to this Court that most of the parties in the Bankruptcy Action have reached a settlement and only need approval by the Bankruptcy Court.[15] Defendants dispute that representation, however, and contend that the settlement agreement is stale.[16] In any case, Defendants stated that they would not settle their equitable ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.