Deck 17: Alternative Exit and Restructuring Strategies: Bankruptcy Reorganization and Liquidation

Question 1

A debt-for-equity swap occurs when creditors surrender a portion of their claims on the firm in exchange for an ownership position in the firm.

Answer 1

True

Question 2

By law,corporate liquidation can only be conducted outside of the U.S.bankruptcy court.

Answer 2

False

Question 3

Reforms in creditor rights tend to increase the availability and reduce the cost of credit in countries where court enforcement is quick and fair.

Answer 3

True

Question 4

Credit ratings provided by Moody's and Standard & Poor's are highly reliable indicators of a firm's degree of financial distress.

Question 5

The term financial distress could apply to a firm unable to meet its obligations or to a specific security on which the issuer has defaulted.

Question 6

If a creditor is owed a large amount of money,it could become a major or even the controlling shareholder in the reorganized firm.

Question 7

Increasingly,distressed companies are choosing to restructure inside of bankruptcy court,rather than reaching a general agreement with creditors before seeking Chapter 11 protection.

Question 8

For capital markets to function smoothly,disputes involving the legal rights of all participants (both debtors and creditors)need to be resolved quickly and equitably by the courts.

Question 9

Financially distressed firms also affect communities in which they are located in terms of increasing unemployment and eroding the tax base.

Question 10

A firm is said to be bankrupt once it defaults on a bond payment.

Question 11

A composition is an agreement in which creditors agree to settle for less than the full amount they are owed.

Question 12

A firm is said to be technically solvent when it is unable to pay its liabilities as they come due.

Question 13

A workout is an arrangement conducted inside of bankruptcy court by a debtor and its creditors for payment or re-scheduling of payment of the debtor's obligations.

Question 14

Large companies often have a difficult time achieving out-of-court settlements because they usually have hundreds of creditors.

Question 15

A debt extension occurs when creditors agree to lengthen the period during which the debtor firm can repay its debt.

Question 16

Bankruptcy is a state-level legal proceeding designed to protect the technically or legally insolvent firm from lawsuits by its creditors until a decision can be made to shut down or to continue to operate the firm.

Question 17

A debt-for-equity swap occurs when the distressed firm's shareholders are willing to surrender a portion of their ownership for debt in the firm.

Question 18

The debtor firm often initiates the voluntary settlement process,because it generally offers the best chance for the current owners to recover a portion of their investments either by continuing to operate the firm or through a planned liquidation of the firm.

Question 19

Legal insolvency occurs when a firm's liabilities exceed the book value of its assets.

Question 20

A firm is not bankrupt or in bankruptcy until it files or its creditors file a petition for reorganization or liquidation with the federal bankruptcy courts.

Question 21

In the absence of a voluntary settlement out of court,the debtor firm may seek protection from its creditors by initiating bankruptcy.However,creditors cannot force the debtor firm into bankruptcy.
.

Question 22

As part of a Chapter 15 proceeding,the U.S.bankruptcy court may authorize a trustee to act in a foreign country on behalf of the U.S.Bankruptcy Court.

Question 23

Prior to the Bankruptcy Abuse Protection and Consumer Protection Act of 2005,the debtor had the exclusive right to file a plan of reorganization for the first 120 days after it filed the case.

Question 24

Chapter 11 of the U.S.bankruptcy code deals with liquidation while Chapter 7 addresses reorganization.

Question 25

In liquidation,bankruptcy professionals,including attorneys,accountants,and trustees,often end up with the majority of the proceeds generated by selling the assets of the failing firm.

Question 26

The court can ignore the objections of creditors and stockholders if it feels the reorganization is both fair and feasible.

Question 27

In the absence of a voluntary settlement out of court,the debtor firm may seek protection from its creditors by initiating bankruptcy or may be forced into bankruptcy by its creditors.

Question 28

Chapter 11 reorganization often enables creditors to recover relatively more of their claims than under liquidation.

Question 29

Empirical studies show that company size (measured by assets),case duration (measured in days),and the number of parties involved in the proceedings (measured in terms of the numbers of professional firms working)explain most of the case-to-case variation in professional fees.

Question 30

The court must approve any plan accepted by the debtor's shareholders and creditors.True of False

Question 31

U.S.bankruptcy laws and practices focus on maintaining shareholder value during the bankruptcy process.

Question 32

Companies may not seek the protection of bankruptcy court to avoid liquidation.True of False

Question 33

The filing of a petition triggers an automatic stay once the court accepts the request,which provides a period suspending all judgments,collection activities,foreclosures,and repossessions of property by the creditors on any debt or claim that arose before the filing of the bankruptcy petition.

Question 34

Under a prepackaged bankruptcy,the debtor negotiates with creditors well in advance of filing for a Chapter 7 bankruptcy.

Question 35

Through a process called an assignment,a committee representing creditors grants the power to liquidate the firm's assets to a third party called an assignee or trustee.

Question 36

If the insolvent firm is willing to accept liquidation,,legal proceedings are not necessary,regardless of what the creditors think.

Question 37

Prepackaged bankruptcies are less common today than in years past.

Question 38

Automatic stays are granted by the court only when the debtor files for bankruptcy.

Question 39

Prior to the Bankruptcy Abuse Protection and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (BAPCPA),commercial enterprises used Chapter 11 Reorganization to continue operating a business and to repay creditors through a court-approved plan of reorganization.

Question 40

The purpose of Chapter 15 of the U.S.Bankruptcy Code is to prioritize the payment of creditors.

Question 41

Sales within the protection of Chapter 11 reorganization may be accomplished either by a negotiated private sale to a particular purchaser or through a public auction.

Question 42

All of the following are true of the bankruptcy process except for

A) The debtor firm may seek protection from its creditors by initiating bankruptcy or may be forced into bankruptcy by its creditors.
B) When creditors file for bankruptcy on behalf of the debtor firm, the action is said to be involuntary bankruptcy.
C) Once either a voluntary or involuntary petition is filed, the debtor firm is protected from any further legal action related to its debts until the bankruptcy proceedings are completed.
D) The filing of a petition triggers an automatic stay even before the court accepts the request.
E) An automatic stay suspends all judgments, collection activities, foreclosures, and repossessions of property by the creditors on any debt or claim that arose before the filing of the bankruptcy petition

Question 43

Which of the following are commonly used strategic alternatives for failing firms?

A) Merge with another firm
B) Reach out of court voluntary settlement with creditors
C) File for protection from creditors from the U.S. bankruptcy court
D) A, B, and C
E) A and B only

Question 44

All of the following are conditions most favorable for reaching settlement outside of bankruptcy court except for

A) The debtor firm is willing to share all necessary information with its creditors
B) Creditors have confidence in the debtor firm's management.
C) The debtor firm has relatively few creditors.
D) The debtor firm has many creditors.
E) The period of economic distress afflicting the firm is expected to be short-lived.

Question 45

To determine which strategy to pursue,the failing firm's management needs to estimate which of the following:

A) Going concern value
B) Liquidation value
C) Selling price of the firm
D) A and B only
E) A, B, and C

Question 46

Federal law prohibits trading in a bankrupt firm's securities.

Question 47

Smaller creditors have little incentive to attempt to hold up the agreement unless they receive special treatment.

Question 48

Financially distressed firms often are characterized by all of the following except for:

A) Underinvestment in operations
B) Employee layoffs
C) High levels of research and development spending
D) Declining product quality
E) Slower payments to suppliers

Question 49

Which of the following statements is not true?

A) Technical insolvency arises when a firm is unable to meet its obligations when they come due.
B) Legal insolvency occurs when a firm's liabilities exceed the fair market value of its assets.
C) A firm must be legally insolvent to enter bankruptcy.
D) Bankruptcy is a legal proceeding which protects a debtor firm from its creditors.
E) A firm is not considered bankrupt until its petition for bankruptcy is accepted by the court.

Question 50

If a firm enters into a workout in which a voluntary negotiated agreement with debtors is achieved,the firm may lose its right to claim NOLs in its tax filing.

Question 51

Economic distress arises when a firm's growth and investment prospects deteriorate,causing a reduction in the value of the business due to the deteriorating outlook for the firm's cash flow.

Question 52

The leading causes of business failure include which of the following:

A) Recession
B) Excessive operating expenses
C) Excessive leverage
D) Management inexperience
E) All of the above

Question 53

While bankrupt firms generally are unable to meet the listing requirements of the major stock exchanges,their shares may trade in the over-the-counter market.

Question 54

Why would creditors be willing to give a portion of what they are owed by the debtor firm for equity in the reorganized firm?

A) They are legally obligated to do so under U.S. bankruptcy law.
B) Ownership in a firm is inherently more valuable than being a creditor.
C) The value of the stock may in the long run far exceed the amount of debt the creditors were willing to forgive.
D) Creditors understand that they can sue the firm at a later date for what they are owed.
E) None of the above.

Question 55

If the going concern value is less than the selling or liquidation price,the firm should seek the protection of the bankruptcy court.

Question 56

Moody's credit rating agency defines instances of default as which of the following:

A) Missed or delayed payment of interest or principal
B) Bankruptcy
C) Receivership
D) Any exchange (equity for debt) diminishing the value of what is owed to bondholders
E) All of the above

Question 57

All of the following represent different forms of debt restructuring except for

A) Debt extensions
B) Debt compositions
C) Share exchange ratios
D) Debt for equity swaps
E) A and D

Question 58

If the selling price of the failing firm is less than the going concern and liquidation value,the firm should sell the firm to another party.

Question 59

All of the following are true except for

A) Chapter 15 deals with international or cross-border bankruptcies.
B) Chapter 11 deals with reorganizing the firm.
C) Chapter 7 defines the process and priorities of the liquidation process for commercial businesses.
D) Chapter 11 also addresses issues pertaining to personal bankruptcy.
E) A and B

Question 60

Debt restructuring of a bankrupt firm is usually accomplished in which of the following ways:

A) An extension
B) A composition
C) A debt for equity swap
D) Some combination of a, b, or c
E) All of the above

Question 61

PG&E SEEKS BANKRUPTCY PROTECTION
Pacific, Gas, and Electric (PG&E), the San Francisco-based utility, filed for bankruptcy on April 7, 2001, citing nearly $9 billion in debt and un-reimbursed energy costs. The utility, one of three privately owned utilities in California, serves northern and central California. The intention of the Chapter 11 reorganization was to make the utility solvent again by protecting the firm from lawsuits or any other action by those who are owed money by the utility. The bankruptcy will also allow the utility to deal with all of the firm's debts in a single forum rather than with individual debtors in what had become a highly politicized venue. The following time line outlines the firm's road to bankruptcy. .
Utility industry analysts saw PG&E's move as largely an effort to escape the political paralysis that had befallen the state's regulatory apparatus. The bankruptcy filing came one day after Governor Davis dropped his opposition to raising retail rates. However, the Governor's reversal came after five month's of negotiations with the state's privately owned utilities on a rescue plan.
PG&E's common shares fell 37 percent on the day the firm filed for reorganization. Fearing a similar fate for San Diego Gas and Electric, the shares of Sempra Energy, SDG&E's parent corporation, also dropped by 35 percent
In an attempt to insulate California ratepayers from escalating wholesale electricity prices, the state entered into a series of 5-to-10 year contracts with electricity power generators that account for more than two-thirds of the state's projected power needs. The last contracts were signed by the state in June 2001. By September, a slowing economy pushed the wholesale price of electricity well below the level the state was required to pay in the "take or pay" contracts the state had just signed. Estimates suggest that California taxpayers will have to pay between $40 and $45 billion in power costs over the next decade depending on what happens to future energy costs. PG&E has continued to supply its customers without disruption or blackout while being under the protection of the bankruptcy court.
Southern California Edison, nearing bankruptcy for reasons similar to those that drove PG&E to seek protection from its creditors, reached agreement with the Public Utility Commission to pay off $3.3 billion in debt owed to power generators from customer revenues. Previously, the PUC had forbid the utility to use monies generated from two previous rate increases for this purpose. The U.S. District Court judge approved the plan on October 5, 2001. While some creditors complained that the settlement was not reassuring because it did not include a timetable for repayment of outstanding debt, others viewed the agreement as a voluntary reorganization plan without going through the expensive process of filing for bankruptcy with the federal court.
:
In your judgment,did regulators attenuate or exacerbate the situation? Explain your answer.

Question 62

PG&E SEEKS BANKRUPTCY PROTECTION
Pacific, Gas, and Electric (PG&E), the San Francisco-based utility, filed for bankruptcy on April 7, 2001, citing nearly $9 billion in debt and un-reimbursed energy costs. The utility, one of three privately owned utilities in California, serves northern and central California. The intention of the Chapter 11 reorganization was to make the utility solvent again by protecting the firm from lawsuits or any other action by those who are owed money by the utility. The bankruptcy will also allow the utility to deal with all of the firm's debts in a single forum rather than with individual debtors in what had become a highly politicized venue. The following time line outlines the firm's road to bankruptcy. .
Utility industry analysts saw PG&E's move as largely an effort to escape the political paralysis that had befallen the state's regulatory apparatus. The bankruptcy filing came one day after Governor Davis dropped his opposition to raising retail rates. However, the Governor's reversal came after five month's of negotiations with the state's privately owned utilities on a rescue plan.
PG&E's common shares fell 37 percent on the day the firm filed for reorganization. Fearing a similar fate for San Diego Gas and Electric, the shares of Sempra Energy, SDG&E's parent corporation, also dropped by 35 percent
In an attempt to insulate California ratepayers from escalating wholesale electricity prices, the state entered into a series of 5-to-10 year contracts with electricity power generators that account for more than two-thirds of the state's projected power needs. The last contracts were signed by the state in June 2001. By September, a slowing economy pushed the wholesale price of electricity well below the level the state was required to pay in the "take or pay" contracts the state had just signed. Estimates suggest that California taxpayers will have to pay between $40 and $45 billion in power costs over the next decade depending on what happens to future energy costs. PG&E has continued to supply its customers without disruption or blackout while being under the protection of the bankruptcy court.
Southern California Edison, nearing bankruptcy for reasons similar to those that drove PG&E to seek protection from its creditors, reached agreement with the Public Utility Commission to pay off $3.3 billion in debt owed to power generators from customer revenues. Previously, the PUC had forbid the utility to use monies generated from two previous rate increases for this purpose. The U.S. District Court judge approved the plan on October 5, 2001. While some creditors complained that the settlement was not reassuring because it did not include a timetable for repayment of outstanding debt, others viewed the agreement as a voluntary reorganization plan without going through the expensive process of filing for bankruptcy with the federal court.
:
PG&E pursued bankruptcy protection,while Southern California Edison did not.What could PG&E have been done differently to avoid bankruptcy?

Question 63

All of the following are true of the bankruptcy process except for

A) Creditors and the debtor-in-possession have considerable flexibility in working together.
B) The purpose of creditor committees is to work with the debtor firm to develop an acceptable reorganization plan
C) The bankruptcy judge may choose to ignore the objections of creditors and shareholders and accept a reorganization plan.
D) The government is responsible for paying the expenses of all those who contributed to the formulation of a reorganization plan.
E) The debtor firm may emerge from Chapter 11 as an ongoing concern or be merged with another firm.

Question 64

What alternative restructuring strategies do you believe may have been
considered for GM? Of these,do you believe that the 363 sale in bankruptcy
represented the best course of action? Explain your answers.

Question 65

All of the following are true about voluntary liquidations except for

A) They can be conducted outside of court in a private auction.
B) They can be done within the protection of the bankruptcy court.
C) Creditors normally prefer liquidations to be conducted by the bankruptcy court..
D) A trustee is assigned to sell the debtor firm's assets as quickly as possible while obtaining the best possible price.
E) If the insolvent firm is willing to accept liquidation and all creditors agree, legal proceedings are not necessary.

Question 66

Lehman Brothers Files for Chapter 11 in the Biggest Bankruptcy in U.S. History
A casualty of the 2008 credit crisis that shook Wall Street to its core, Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc., a holding company, announced on September 15, 2008, that it had filed a petition under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. Lehman's board of directors decided to opt for court protection after attempts to find a buyer for the entire firm collapsed. With assets of $639 billion and liabilities of $613 billion, Lehman is the largest bankruptcy in history in terms of assets. The next biggest bankruptcies were WorldCom and Enron with $126 billion and $81 billion in assets, respectively.
None of the holding company's subsidiaries was included in the filing, enabling customers of Lehman's brokerage, Neuberger Berman Holdings, to continue to use their accounts to trade. Furthermore, by excluding its units from the bankruptcy filing, customers of its broker-dealer operations would not be subject to claims by LBHI's more than 100,000 creditors in the bankruptcy case.
Prior to the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010 (see Chapter 2) limiting such rights, counterparties could cancel contracts when a financial services firm went bankrupt. Lehman would normally hedge or protect its investments by taking opposite positions to minimize potential losses in its derivatives portfolios. Derivatives are financial instruments whose value changes in response to the value of the underlying assets over a specific period. For example, if the firm purchased a contract to buy oil at a specific price at some point in the future, it would also sell a contract at a somewhat lower price to another party (called a counterparty) to minimize losses if the price of oil dropped. Thus, the bankruptcy filing left Lehman's investment positions unprotected.
On September 20, 2008, Barclays PLC., a major U.K. bank, acquired Lehman's broker-dealer operations for $250 million and paid an additional $1.5 billion for the firm's New York headquarters building and two New Jersey-based data centers. Coming just five days after Lehman filed for bankruptcy, the deal reflected the urgency to find buyers for those businesses whose value consisted primarily of their employees. Barclays did not buy any of Lehman's commercial real estate assets or private equity and hedge fund investments. However, Barclays did agree to take $47.4 billion in securities and assume $45.5 billion in trading liabilities. On September 24, 2008, Japanese brokerage Nomura Securities acquired Lehman's Japanese and Australian operation for $250 million. Lehman's investment management group, Neuberger Berman, was sold in late December 2008 to a Neuberger management group for $922 million. Under the deal, Neuberger's management would own 51 percent of the firm, and Lehman's creditors would control the remainder. Other Lehman assets, consisting primarily of complex derivatives ranging from oil price futures to credit default swaps (i.e., debt insurance) to options on stock indices, with more than 8,000 counterparties, were expected to take years to identify, value, and liquidate. The firm also could expect to face numerous lawsuits.
The October 18, 2008, auction of $400 billion of Lehman's debt issues was valued at 8.5 cents on the dollar. Because such debt was backed by only the firm's creditworthiness, the buyers of the Lehman debt had purchased insurance from other financial institutions to mitigate the risk of a Lehman default. The existence of these credit default swap arrangements meant that the insurers were required to pay Lehman bondholders $366 billion (i.e., 0.915 × $400 billion). Purchasers of this debt were betting that, following Lehman's liquidation, holders of this debt would receive more than 8.5 cents on the dollar and the insurers would be able to satisfy their obligations.
Hedge funds also were affected by the Lehman bankruptcy. Hedge funds borrowed heavily from Lehman, putting up certain assets as collateral for the loans. While legal, Lehman was using this collateral to borrow from other firms. By using its customers' collateral as its own collateral, Lehman and other firms could borrow more money, using the proceeds to make additional investments. When Lehman filed for bankruptcy, the court took control of such assets until who was entitled to the assets could be determined. Moreover, while derivative agreements were designed to terminate whenever a party declares bankruptcy and be settled outside of court, Lehman's general creditors may lay claim to any collateral whose value exceeds the value of the derivative agreements. Disentangling these claims will take years.
In early 2010, a report compiled by bank examiners described how Lehman manipulated its financial statements, leaving the investing public, credit rating agencies, government regulators, and Lehman's board of directors totally unaware of the accounting tricks. By departing from common accounting practices, Lehman appeared to be less levered than it actually was. It was pressure from speculators, sensing that the firm was in disarray, which uncovered the scam by selling Lehman's stock short and accomplishing what the regulators and credit rating agencies could not. See the Inside M&A case study at the beginning of Chapter 2 for more details on Lehman's accounting practices.
Discussion Questions
1. Why did Lehman choose not to seek Chapter 11 protection for its subsidiaries?
2. How does Chapter 11 bankruptcy protect Lehman's creditors? How does it potentially hurt them? Explain your answers.
3. Do you believe the U.S. bankruptcy process was appropriate in this instance? Explain your answer.
4. Do you believe the U.S. government's failure to bail out Lehman, thereby forcing the firm to file for bankruptcy, exacerbated the global credit meltdown in October 2008? Explain your answer.
Case Study Short Essay Examination Questions:
A Reorganized Dana Corporation
Emerges from Bankruptcy Court
Dana Corporation, an automotive parts manufacturer, announced on February 1, 2008, that it had emerged from bankruptcy court with an exit financing facility of $2 billion. The firm had entered Chapter 11 reorganization on March 3, 2006. During the ensuing 21 months, the firm and its constituents identified, agreed on, and won court approval for approximately $440 million to $475 million in annual cost savings and the elimination of unprofitable products. These annual savings resulted from achieving better plant utilization due to changes in union work rules, wage and benefit reductions, the reduction of ongoing obligations for retiree health and welfare costs, and streamlining administrative expenses.
The plan of reorganization accepted by the court, creditors, and investors included a $750 million equity investment provided by Centerbridge Capital Partners to fund a portion of the firm's health-care and pension obligations. Under the plan, shareholders received no payout. Bondholders of some $1.62 billion in various maturities and holders of $1.63 billion in unsecured claims recovered about 60-90 percent of their claims. Centerbridge would acquire $250 million of convertible preferred stock in the reorganized Dana operation, and creditors, who had agreed to support the reorganization plan, could acquire up to $500 million of the convertible preferred shares. The preferred shares were issued as an inducement to get creditors to support the plan of reorganization. Under the reorganization plan, Dana sold some businesses, cut plants in the United States and Canada, reduced its hourly and salaried workforce, and sought price
Does the process outlined in this business case seem equitable for all parties to the bankruptcy proceedings? Why? Why not? Be specific.

Question 67

Calpine Emerges from the Protection of Bankruptcy Court
Following approval of its sixth Plan of Reorganization by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, Calpine Corporation was able to emerge from Chapter 11 bankruptcy on January 31, 2008. Burdened by excessive debt and court battles with creditors on how to use its cash, the electric utility had sought Chapter 11 protection by petitioning the bankruptcy court in December 2005. After settlements with certain stakeholders, all classes of creditors voted to approve the Plan of Reorganization, which provided for the discharge of claims through the issuance of reorganized Calpine Corporation common stock, cash, or a combination of cash and stock to its creditors.
Shortly after exiting bankruptcy, Calpine cancelled all of its then outstanding common stock and authorized the issuance of 485 million shares of reorganized Calpine Corporation common stock for distribution to holders of unsecured claims. In addition, the firm issued warrants (i.e., securities) to purchase 48.5 million shares of reorganized Calpine Corporation common stock to the holders of the cancelled (i.e., previously outstanding) common stock. The warrants were issued on a pro rata basis reflecting the number of shares of "old common stock" held at the time of cancellation. These warrants carried an exercise price of $23.88 per share and expired on August 25, 2008. Relisted on the New York Stock Exchange, the reorganized Calpine Corporation common stock began trading under the symbol CPN on February 7, 2008, at about $18 per share.
The firm had improved its capital structure while in bankruptcy. On entering bankruptcy, Calpine carried $17.4 billion of debt with an average interest rate of 10.3 percent. By retiring unsecured debt with reorganized Calpine Corporation common stock and selling certain assets, Calpine was able to repay or refinance certain project debt, thereby reducing the prebankruptcy petition debt by approximately $7 billion. On exiting bankruptcy, Calpine negotiated approximately $7.3 billion of secured "exit facilities" (i.e., credit lines) from Goldman Sachs, Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, and Morgan Stanley. About $6.4 billion of these funds were used to satisfy cash payment obligations under the Plan of Reorganization. These obligations included the repayment of a portion of unsecured creditor claims and administrative claims, such as legal and consulting fees, as well as expenses incurred in connection with the "exit facilities" and immediate working capital requirements. On emerging from Chapter 11, the firm carried $10.4 billion of debt with an average interest rate of 8.1 percent.
The Enron Shuffle-A Scandal to Remember
What started in the mid-1980s as essentially a staid "old-economy" business became the poster child in the late 1990s for companies wanting to remake themselves into "new-economy" powerhouses. Unfortunately, what may have started with the best of intentions emerged as one of the biggest business scandals in U.S. history. Enron was created in 1985 as a result of a merger between Houston Natural Gas and Internorth Natural Gas. In 1989, Enron started trading natural gas commodities and eventually became the world's largest buyer and seller of natural gas. In the early 1990s, Enron became the nation's premier electricity marketer and pioneered the development of trading in such commodities as weather derivatives, bandwidth, pulp, paper, and plastics. Enron invested billions in its broadband unit and water and wastewater system management unit and in hard assets overseas. In 2000, Enron reported $101 billion in revenue and a market capitalization of $63 billion.
The Virtual Company
Enron was essentially a company whose trading and risk management business strategy was built on assets largely owned by others. The complex financial maneuvering and off-balance-sheet partnerships that former CEO Jeffrey K. Skilling and chief financial officer Andrew S. Fastow implemented were intended to remove everything from telecommunications fiber to water companies from the firm's balance sheet and into partnerships. What distinguished Enron's partnerships from those commonly used to share risks were their lack of independence from Enron and the use of Enron's stock as collateral to leverage the partnerships. If Enron's stock fell in value, the firm was obligated to issue more shares to the partnership to restore the value of the collateral underlying the debt or immediately repay the debt. Lenders in effect had direct recourse to Enron stock if at any time the partnerships could not repay their loans in full. Rather than limiting risk, Enron was assuming total risk by guaranteeing the loans with its stock.
Enron also engaged in transactions that inflated its earnings, such as selling time on its broadband system to a partnership at inflated prices at a time when the demand for broadband was plummeting. Enron then recorded a substantial profit on such transactions. The partnerships agreed to such transactions because Enron management seems to have exerted disproportionate influence in some instances over partnership decisions, although its ownership interests were very small, often less than 3 percent. Curiously, Enron's outside auditor, Arthur Andersen, had a dual role in these partnerships, collecting fees for helping to set them up and auditing them.
Time to Pay the Piper
At the time the firm filed for bankruptcy on December 2, 2001, it had $13.1 billion in debt on the books of the parent company and another $18.1 billion on the balance sheets of affiliated companies and partnerships. In addition to the partnerships created by Enron, a number of bad investments both in the United States and abroad contributed to the firm's malaise. Meanwhile, Enron's core energy distribution business was deteriorating. Enron was attempting to gain share in a maturing market by paring selling prices. Margins also suffered from poor cost containment.
Dynegy Corp. agreed to buy Enron for $10 billion on November 2, 2001. On November 8, Enron announced that its net income would have to be restated back to 1997, resulting in a $586 million reduction in reported profits. On November 15, chairman Kenneth Lay admitted that the firm had made billions of dollars in bad investments. Four days later, Enron said it would have to repay a $690 million note by mid-December and it might have to take an additional $700 million pretax charge. At the end of the month, Dynegy withdrew its offer and Enron's credit rating was reduced to junk bond status. Enron was responsible for another $3.9 billion owed by its partnerships. Enron had less than $2 billion in cash on hand.
The end came quickly as investors and customers completely lost faith in the energy behemoth as a result of its secrecy and complex financial maneuvers, forcing the firm into bankruptcy in early December. Enron's stock, which had reached a high of $90 per share on August 17, 2001, was trading at less than $1 by December 5, 2001.
In addition to its angry creditors, Enron faced class-action lawsuits by shareholders and employees, whose pensions were invested heavily in Enron stock. Enron also faced intense scrutiny from congressional committees and the U.S. Department of Justice. By the end of 2001, shareholders had lost more than $63 billion from its previous 52-week high, bondholders lost $2.6 billion in the face value of their debt, and banks appeared to be at risk on at least $15 billion of credit they had extended to Enron. In addition, potential losses on uncollateralized derivative contracts totaled $4 billion. Such contracts involved Enron commitments to buy various types of commodities at some point in the future.
Questions remain as to why Wall Street analysts, Arthur Andersen, federal or state regulatory authorities, the credit rating agencies, and the firm's board of directors did not sound the alarm sooner. It is surprising that the audit committee of the Enron board seems to have somehow been unaware of the firm's highly questionable financial maneuvers. Inquiries following the bankruptcy declaration seem to suggest that the audit committee followed all the rules stipulated by federal regulators and stock exchanges regarding director pay, independence, disclosure, and financial expertise. Enron seems to have collapsed in part because such rules did not do what they were supposed to do. For example, paying directors with stock may have aligned their interests with shareholders, but it also is possible to have been a disincentive to question aggressively senior management about their financial dealings.
The Lessons of Enron
Enron may be the best recent example of a complete breakdown in corporate governance, a system intended to protect shareholders. Inside Enron, the board of directors, management, and the audit function failed to do the job. Similarly, the firm's outside auditors, regulators, credit rating agencies, and Wall Street analysts also failed to alert investors. What seems to be apparent is that if the auditors fail to identify incompetence or fraud, the system of safeguards is likely to break down. The cost of failure to those charged with protecting the shareholders, including outside auditors, analysts, credit-rating agencies, and regulators, was simply not high enough to ensure adequate scrutiny.
What may have transpired is that company managers simply undertook aggressive interpretations of accounting principles then challenged auditors to demonstrate that such practices were not in accordance with GAAP accounting rules (Weil, 2002). This type of practice has been going on since the early 1980s and may account for the proliferation of specific accounting rules applicable only to certain transactions to insulate both the firm engaging in the transaction and the auditor reviewing the transaction from subsequent litigation. In one sense, the Enron debacle represents a failure of the free market system and its current shareholder protection mechanisms, in that it took so long for the dramatic Enron shell game to be revealed to the public. However, this incident highlights the remarkable resilience of the free market system. The free market system worked quite effectively in its rapid imposition of discipline in bringing down the Enron house of cards, without any noticeable disruption in energy distribution nationwide.
Epilogue
Due to the complexity of dealing with so many types of creditors, Enron filed its plan with the federal bankruptcy court to reorganize one and a half years after seeking bankruptcy protection on December 2, 2001. The resulting reorganization has been one of the most costly and complex on record, with total legal and consulting fees exceeding $500 million by the end of 2003. More than 350 classes of creditors, including banks, bondholders, and other energy companies that traded with Enron said they were owed about $67 billion.
Under the reorganization plan, unsecured creditors received an estimated 14 cents for each dollar of claims against Enron Corp., while those with claims against Enron North America received an estimated 18.3 cents on the dollar. The money came in cash payments and stock in two holding companies, CrossCountry containing the firm's North American pipeline assets and Prisma Energy International containing the firm's South American operations.
After losing its auditing license in 2004, Arthur Andersen, formerly among the largest auditing firms in the world, ceased operation. In 2006, Andrew Fastow, former Enron chief financial officer, and Lea Fastow plead guilty to several charges of conspiracy to commit fraud. Andrew Fastow received a sentence of 10 years in prison without the possibility of parole. His wife received a much shorter sentence. Also in 2006, Enron chairman Kenneth Lay died while awaiting sentencing, and Enron president Jeffery Skilling received a sentence of 24 years in prison.
Citigroup agreed in early 2008 to pay $1.66 billion to Enron creditors who lost money following the collapse of the firm. Citigroup was the last remaining defendant in what was known as the Mega Claims lawsuit, a bankruptcy lawsuit filed in 2003 against 11 banks and brokerages. The suit alleged that, with the help of banks, Enron kept creditors in the dark about the firm's financial problems through misleading accounting practices. Because of the Mega Claims suit, creditors recovered a total of $5 billion or about 37.4 cents on each dollar owed to them. This lawsuit followed the settlement of a $40 billion class action lawsuit by shareholders, which Citicorp settled in June 2005 for $2 billion.
In your judgment,what were the major factors contributing to the demise of Enron? Of these factors,which were the most important?

Question 68

Discuss the relative fairness to the various stakeholders in a bankruptcy of a more traditional Chapter 11 bankruptcy in which a firm emerges from the protection of the bankruptcy court following the development of a plan of reorganization versus an expedited sale under Section 363 of the federal bankruptcy law.Be specific.

Question 69

Comment on the fairness of the bankruptcy process to shareholders,lenders,employees,communities,government,etc.Be specific.

Question 70

The first round of government loans to GM occurred in December 2008.The
firm did not file for bankruptcy until June 1,2009.Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the firm having filed for bankruptcy much earlier in 2009.Be specific.

Question 71

How does Chapter 11 potentially affect adversely competitors of those firms emerging from
bankruptcy? Explain your answer.

Question 72

The General Motors' Bankruptcy-The Largest Government-Sponsored Bailout in U.S. History
Rarely has a firm fallen as far and as fast as General Motors. Founded in 1908, GM dominated the car industry through the early 1950s with its share of the U.S. car market reaching 54 percent in 1954, which proved to be the firm's high water mark. Efforts in the 1980s to cut costs by building brands on common platforms blurred their distinctiveness. Following increasing healthcare and pension benefits paid to employees, concessions made to unions in the early 1990s to pay workers even when their plants were shut down reduced the ability of the firm to adjust to changes in the cyclical car market. GM was increasingly burdened by so-called legacy costs (i.e., healthcare and pension obligations to a growing retiree population). Over time, GM's labor costs soared compared to the firm's major competitors. To cover these costs, GM continued to make higher margin medium to full-size cars and trucks, which in the wake of higher gas prices could only be sold with the help of highly attractive incentive programs. Forced to support an escalating array of brands, the firm was unable to provide sufficient marketing funds for any one of its brands.
With the onset of one of the worst global recessions in the post-World War II years, auto sales worldwide collapsed by the end of 2008. All automakers' sales and cash flows plummeted. Unlike Ford, GM and Chrysler were unable to satisfy their financial obligations. The U.S. government, in an unprecedented move, agreed to lend GM and Chrysler $13 billion and $4 billion, respectively. The intent was to buy time to develop an appropriate restructuring plan.
Having essentially ruled out liquidation of GM and Chrysler, continued government financing was contingent on gaining major concessions from all major stakeholders such as lenders, suppliers, and labor unions. With car sales continuing to show harrowing double-digit year over year declines during the first half of 2009, the threat of bankruptcy was used to motivate the disparate parties to come to an agreement. With available cash running perilously low, Chrysler entered bankruptcy in early May and GM on June 1, with the government providing debtor in possession financing during their time in bankruptcy. In its bankruptcy filing for its U.S. and Canadian operations only, GM listed $82.3 billion in assets and $172.8 billion in liabilities. In less than 45 days each, both GM and Chrysler emerged from government-sponsored sales in bankruptcy court, a feat that many thought impossible.
Judge Robert E. Gerber of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court of New York approved the sale in view of the absence of alternatives considered more favorable to the government's option. GM emerged from the protection of the court on July 10, 2009, in an economic environment characterized by escalating unemployment and eroding consumer income and confidence. Even with less debt and liabilities, fewer employees, the elimination of most "legacy costs," and a reduced number of dealerships and brands, GM found itself operating in an environment in 2009 in which U.S. vehicle sales totaled an anemic 10.4 million units. This compared to more than 16 million in 2008. GM's 2009 market share slipped to a post-World War II low of about 19 percent.
While the bankruptcy option had been under consideration for several months, its attraction grew as it became increasingly apparent that time was running out for the cash-strapped firm. Having determined from the outset that liquidation of GM either inside or outside of the protection of bankruptcy would not be considered, the government initially considered a prepackaged bankruptcy in which agreement is obtained among major stakeholders prior to filing for bankruptcy. The presumption is that since agreement with many parties had already been obtained, developing a plan of reorganization to emerge from Chapter 11 would move more quickly. However, this option was not pursued because of the concern that the public would simply view the post-Chapter 11 GM as simply a smaller version of its former self. The government in particular was seeking to position GM as an entirely new firm capable of profitably designing and building cars that the public wanted.
Time was of the essence. The concern was that consumers would not buy GM vehicles while the firm was in bankruptcy. Consequently, a strategy was devised in which GM would be divided into two firms: "old GM," which would contain the firm's unwanted assets, and "new GM," which would own the most attractive assets. "New GM" would then emerge from bankruptcy in a sale to a new company owned by various stakeholder groups, including the U.S. and Canadian governments, a union trust fund, and bondholders. Only GM's U.S. and Canadian operations were included in the bankruptcy filing. Figure 16.2 illustrates the GM bankruptcy process.
Buying distressed assets can be accomplished through a Chapter 11 plan of reorganization or a post-confirmation trustee. Alternatively, a 363 sale transfers the acquired assets free and clear of any liens, claims, and encumbrances. The sale of GM's attractive assets to the "new GM" was ultimately completed under Section 363 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. Historically, firms used this tactic to sell failing plants and redundant equipment. In recent years, so-called 363 sales have been used to completely restructure businesses, including the 363 sales of entire companies. A 363 sale requires only the approval of the bankruptcy judge, while a plan of reorganization in Chapter 11 must be approved by a substantial number of creditors and meet certain other requirements to be approved. A plan of reorganization is much more comprehensive than a 363 sale in addressing the overall financial situation of the debtor and how its exit strategy from bankruptcy will affect creditors. Once a 363 sale has been consummated and the purchase price paid, the bankruptcy court decides how the proceeds of sale are allocated among secured creditors with liens on the assets sold.
Total financing provided by the U.S. and Canadian (including the province of Ontario) governments amounted to $69.5 billion. U.S. taxpayer-provided financing totaled $60 billion, which consisted of $10 billion in loans and the remainder in equity. The government decided to contribute $50 billion in the form of equity to reduce the burden on GM of paying interest and principal on its outstanding debt. Nearly $20 billion was provided prior to the bankruptcy, $11 billion to finance the firm during the bankruptcy proceedings, and an additional $19 billion in late 2009. In exchange for these funds, the U.S. government owns 60.8 percent of the "new GM's common shares, while the Canadian and Ontario governments own 11.7 percent in exchange for their investment of $9.5 billion. The United Auto Workers' new voluntary employee beneficiary association (VEBA) received a 17.5 percent stake in exchange for assuming responsibility for retiree medical and pension obligations. Bondholders and other unsecured creditors received a 10 percent ownership position. The U.S. Treasury and the VEBA also received $2.1 billion and $6.5 billion in preferred shares, respectively.
The new firm, which employs 244,000 workers in 34 countries, intends to further reduce its head count of salaried employees to 27,200 by 2012. The firm will also have shed 21,000 union workers from the 54,000 UAW workers it employed prior to declaring bankruptcy in the United States and close 12 to 20 plants. GM did not include its foreign operations in Europe, Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, or Asia Pacific in the Chapter 11 filing. Annual vehicle production capacity for the firm will decline to 10 million vehicles in 2012, compared with 15 to 17 million in 1995. The firm exited bankruptcy with consolidated debt at $17 billion and $9 billion in 9 percent preferred stock, which is payable on a quarterly basis. GM has a new board, with Canada and the UAW healthcare trust each having a seat on the board.
Following bankruptcy, GM has four core brands-Chevrolet, Cadillac, Buick, and GMC-that are sold through 3,600 dealerships, down from its existing 5,969-dealer network. The business plan calls for an IPO whose timing will depend on the firm's return to sufficient profitability and stock market conditions.
By offloading worker healthcare liabilities to the VEBA trust and seeding it mostly with stock instead of cash, GM has eliminated the need to pay more than $4 billion annually in medical costs. Concessions made by the UAW before GM entered bankruptcy have made GM more competitive in terms of labor costs with Toyota.
Assets to be liquidated by Motors Liquidation Company (i.e., "old GM) were split into four trusts, including one financed by $536 million in existing loans from the federal government. These funds were set aside to clean up 50 million square feet of industrial manufacturing space at 127 locations spread across 14 states. Another $300 million was set aside for property taxes, plant security, and other shutdown expenses. A second trust will handle claims of the owners of GM's prebankruptcy debt, who are expected to get 10 percent of the equity in General Motors when the firm goes public and warrants to buy additional shares at a later date. The remaining two trusts are intended to process litigation such as asbestos-related claims. The eventual sale of the remaining assets could take four years, with most of the environmental cleanup activities completed within a decade.
^{Lattman and de la Merced, 2010}
Reflecting the overall improvement in the U.S. economy and in its operating performance, GM repaid $10 billion in loans to the U.S. government in April 2010. Seventeen months after emerging from bankruptcy, the firm completed successfully the largest IPO in history on November 17, 2010, raising $23.1 billion. The IPO was intended to raise cash for the firm and to reduce the government's ownership in the firm, reflecting the firm's concern that ongoing government ownership hurt sales. Following completion of the IPO, government ownership of GM remained at 33 percent, with the government continuing to have three board representatives.
GM is likely to continue to receive government support for years to come. In an unusual move, GM was allowed to retain $45 billion in tax loss carryforwards, which will eliminate the firm's tax payments for years to come. Normally, tax losses are preserved following bankruptcy only if the equity in the reorganized company goes to creditors who have been in place for at least 18 months. Despite not meeting this criterion, the Treasury simply overlooked these regulatory requirements in allowing these tax benefits to accrue to GM. Having repaid its outstanding debt to the government, GM continued to owe the U.S. government $36.4 billion ($50 billion less $13.6 billion received from the IPO) at the end of 2010. Assuming a corporate marginal tax rate of 35 percent, the government would lose another $15.75 in future tax payments as a result of the loss carryforward. The government also is providing $7,500 tax credits to buyers of GM's new all-electric car, the Chevrolet Volt. Discussion Questions
Do you agree or disagree that the taxpayer financed bankruptcy represented the best way to save jobs.Explain your answer.

Question 73

Calpine Emerges from the Protection of Bankruptcy Court
Following approval of its sixth Plan of Reorganization by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, Calpine Corporation was able to emerge from Chapter 11 bankruptcy on January 31, 2008. Burdened by excessive debt and court battles with creditors on how to use its cash, the electric utility had sought Chapter 11 protection by petitioning the bankruptcy court in December 2005. After settlements with certain stakeholders, all classes of creditors voted to approve the Plan of Reorganization, which provided for the discharge of claims through the issuance of reorganized Calpine Corporation common stock, cash, or a combination of cash and stock to its creditors.
Shortly after exiting bankruptcy, Calpine cancelled all of its then outstanding common stock and authorized the issuance of 485 million shares of reorganized Calpine Corporation common stock for distribution to holders of unsecured claims. In addition, the firm issued warrants (i.e., securities) to purchase 48.5 million shares of reorganized Calpine Corporation common stock to the holders of the cancelled (i.e., previously outstanding) common stock. The warrants were issued on a pro rata basis reflecting the number of shares of "old common stock" held at the time of cancellation. These warrants carried an exercise price of $23.88 per share and expired on August 25, 2008. Relisted on the New York Stock Exchange, the reorganized Calpine Corporation common stock began trading under the symbol CPN on February 7, 2008, at about $18 per share.
The firm had improved its capital structure while in bankruptcy. On entering bankruptcy, Calpine carried $17.4 billion of debt with an average interest rate of 10.3 percent. By retiring unsecured debt with reorganized Calpine Corporation common stock and selling certain assets, Calpine was able to repay or refinance certain project debt, thereby reducing the prebankruptcy petition debt by approximately $7 billion. On exiting bankruptcy, Calpine negotiated approximately $7.3 billion of secured "exit facilities" (i.e., credit lines) from Goldman Sachs, Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, and Morgan Stanley. About $6.4 billion of these funds were used to satisfy cash payment obligations under the Plan of Reorganization. These obligations included the repayment of a portion of unsecured creditor claims and administrative claims, such as legal and consulting fees, as well as expenses incurred in connection with the "exit facilities" and immediate working capital requirements. On emerging from Chapter 11, the firm carried $10.4 billion of debt with an average interest rate of 8.1 percent.
The Enron Shuffle-A Scandal to Remember
What started in the mid-1980s as essentially a staid "old-economy" business became the poster child in the late 1990s for companies wanting to remake themselves into "new-economy" powerhouses. Unfortunately, what may have started with the best of intentions emerged as one of the biggest business scandals in U.S. history. Enron was created in 1985 as a result of a merger between Houston Natural Gas and Internorth Natural Gas. In 1989, Enron started trading natural gas commodities and eventually became the world's largest buyer and seller of natural gas. In the early 1990s, Enron became the nation's premier electricity marketer and pioneered the development of trading in such commodities as weather derivatives, bandwidth, pulp, paper, and plastics. Enron invested billions in its broadband unit and water and wastewater system management unit and in hard assets overseas. In 2000, Enron reported $101 billion in revenue and a market capitalization of $63 billion.
The Virtual Company
Enron was essentially a company whose trading and risk management business strategy was built on assets largely owned by others. The complex financial maneuvering and off-balance-sheet partnerships that former CEO Jeffrey K. Skilling and chief financial officer Andrew S. Fastow implemented were intended to remove everything from telecommunications fiber to water companies from the firm's balance sheet and into partnerships. What distinguished Enron's partnerships from those commonly used to share risks were their lack of independence from Enron and the use of Enron's stock as collateral to leverage the partnerships. If Enron's stock fell in value, the firm was obligated to issue more shares to the partnership to restore the value of the collateral underlying the debt or immediately repay the debt. Lenders in effect had direct recourse to Enron stock if at any time the partnerships could not repay their loans in full. Rather than limiting risk, Enron was assuming total risk by guaranteeing the loans with its stock.
Enron also engaged in transactions that inflated its earnings, such as selling time on its broadband system to a partnership at inflated prices at a time when the demand for broadband was plummeting. Enron then recorded a substantial profit on such transactions. The partnerships agreed to such transactions because Enron management seems to have exerted disproportionate influence in some instances over partnership decisions, although its ownership interests were very small, often less than 3 percent. Curiously, Enron's outside auditor, Arthur Andersen, had a dual role in these partnerships, collecting fees for helping to set them up and auditing them.
Time to Pay the Piper
At the time the firm filed for bankruptcy on December 2, 2001, it had $13.1 billion in debt on the books of the parent company and another $18.1 billion on the balance sheets of affiliated companies and partnerships. In addition to the partnerships created by Enron, a number of bad investments both in the United States and abroad contributed to the firm's malaise. Meanwhile, Enron's core energy distribution business was deteriorating. Enron was attempting to gain share in a maturing market by paring selling prices. Margins also suffered from poor cost containment.
Dynegy Corp. agreed to buy Enron for $10 billion on November 2, 2001. On November 8, Enron announced that its net income would have to be restated back to 1997, resulting in a $586 million reduction in reported profits. On November 15, chairman Kenneth Lay admitted that the firm had made billions of dollars in bad investments. Four days later, Enron said it would have to repay a $690 million note by mid-December and it might have to take an additional $700 million pretax charge. At the end of the month, Dynegy withdrew its offer and Enron's credit rating was reduced to junk bond status. Enron was responsible for another $3.9 billion owed by its partnerships. Enron had less than $2 billion in cash on hand.
The end came quickly as investors and customers completely lost faith in the energy behemoth as a result of its secrecy and complex financial maneuvers, forcing the firm into bankruptcy in early December. Enron's stock, which had reached a high of $90 per share on August 17, 2001, was trading at less than $1 by December 5, 2001.
In addition to its angry creditors, Enron faced class-action lawsuits by shareholders and employees, whose pensions were invested heavily in Enron stock. Enron also faced intense scrutiny from congressional committees and the U.S. Department of Justice. By the end of 2001, shareholders had lost more than $63 billion from its previous 52-week high, bondholders lost $2.6 billion in the face value of their debt, and banks appeared to be at risk on at least $15 billion of credit they had extended to Enron. In addition, potential losses on uncollateralized derivative contracts totaled $4 billion. Such contracts involved Enron commitments to buy various types of commodities at some point in the future.
Questions remain as to why Wall Street analysts, Arthur Andersen, federal or state regulatory authorities, the credit rating agencies, and the firm's board of directors did not sound the alarm sooner. It is surprising that the audit committee of the Enron board seems to have somehow been unaware of the firm's highly questionable financial maneuvers. Inquiries following the bankruptcy declaration seem to suggest that the audit committee followed all the rules stipulated by federal regulators and stock exchanges regarding director pay, independence, disclosure, and financial expertise. Enron seems to have collapsed in part because such rules did not do what they were supposed to do. For example, paying directors with stock may have aligned their interests with shareholders, but it also is possible to have been a disincentive to question aggressively senior management about their financial dealings.
The Lessons of Enron
Enron may be the best recent example of a complete breakdown in corporate governance, a system intended to protect shareholders. Inside Enron, the board of directors, management, and the audit function failed to do the job. Similarly, the firm's outside auditors, regulators, credit rating agencies, and Wall Street analysts also failed to alert investors. What seems to be apparent is that if the auditors fail to identify incompetence or fraud, the system of safeguards is likely to break down. The cost of failure to those charged with protecting the shareholders, including outside auditors, analysts, credit-rating agencies, and regulators, was simply not high enough to ensure adequate scrutiny.
What may have transpired is that company managers simply undertook aggressive interpretations of accounting principles then challenged auditors to demonstrate that such practices were not in accordance with GAAP accounting rules (Weil, 2002). This type of practice has been going on since the early 1980s and may account for the proliferation of specific accounting rules applicable only to certain transactions to insulate both the firm engaging in the transaction and the auditor reviewing the transaction from subsequent litigation. In one sense, the Enron debacle represents a failure of the free market system and its current shareholder protection mechanisms, in that it took so long for the dramatic Enron shell game to be revealed to the public. However, this incident highlights the remarkable resilience of the free market system. The free market system worked quite effectively in its rapid imposition of discipline in bringing down the Enron house of cards, without any noticeable disruption in energy distribution nationwide.
Epilogue
Due to the complexity of dealing with so many types of creditors, Enron filed its plan with the federal bankruptcy court to reorganize one and a half years after seeking bankruptcy protection on December 2, 2001. The resulting reorganization has been one of the most costly and complex on record, with total legal and consulting fees exceeding $500 million by the end of 2003. More than 350 classes of creditors, including banks, bondholders, and other energy companies that traded with Enron said they were owed about $67 billion.
Under the reorganization plan, unsecured creditors received an estimated 14 cents for each dollar of claims against Enron Corp., while those with claims against Enron North America received an estimated 18.3 cents on the dollar. The money came in cash payments and stock in two holding companies, CrossCountry containing the firm's North American pipeline assets and Prisma Energy International containing the firm's South American operations.
After losing its auditing license in 2004, Arthur Andersen, formerly among the largest auditing firms in the world, ceased operation. In 2006, Andrew Fastow, former Enron chief financial officer, and Lea Fastow plead guilty to several charges of conspiracy to commit fraud. Andrew Fastow received a sentence of 10 years in prison without the possibility of parole. His wife received a much shorter sentence. Also in 2006, Enron chairman Kenneth Lay died while awaiting sentencing, and Enron president Jeffery Skilling received a sentence of 24 years in prison.
Citigroup agreed in early 2008 to pay $1.66 billion to Enron creditors who lost money following the collapse of the firm. Citigroup was the last remaining defendant in what was known as the Mega Claims lawsuit, a bankruptcy lawsuit filed in 2003 against 11 banks and brokerages. The suit alleged that, with the help of banks, Enron kept creditors in the dark about the firm's financial problems through misleading accounting practices. Because of the Mega Claims suit, creditors recovered a total of $5 billion or about 37.4 cents on each dollar owed to them. This lawsuit followed the settlement of a $40 billion class action lawsuit by shareholders, which Citicorp settled in June 2005 for $2 billion.
In what way was the Enron debacle a break down in corporate governance (oversight)? Explain
your answer.

Question 74

Calpine Emerges from the Protection of Bankruptcy Court
Following approval of its sixth Plan of Reorganization by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, Calpine Corporation was able to emerge from Chapter 11 bankruptcy on January 31, 2008. Burdened by excessive debt and court battles with creditors on how to use its cash, the electric utility had sought Chapter 11 protection by petitioning the bankruptcy court in December 2005. After settlements with certain stakeholders, all classes of creditors voted to approve the Plan of Reorganization, which provided for the discharge of claims through the issuance of reorganized Calpine Corporation common stock, cash, or a combination of cash and stock to its creditors.
Shortly after exiting bankruptcy, Calpine cancelled all of its then outstanding common stock and authorized the issuance of 485 million shares of reorganized Calpine Corporation common stock for distribution to holders of unsecured claims. In addition, the firm issued warrants (i.e., securities) to purchase 48.5 million shares of reorganized Calpine Corporation common stock to the holders of the cancelled (i.e., previously outstanding) common stock. The warrants were issued on a pro rata basis reflecting the number of shares of "old common stock" held at the time of cancellation. These warrants carried an exercise price of $23.88 per share and expired on August 25, 2008. Relisted on the New York Stock Exchange, the reorganized Calpine Corporation common stock began trading under the symbol CPN on February 7, 2008, at about $18 per share.
The firm had improved its capital structure while in bankruptcy. On entering bankruptcy, Calpine carried $17.4 billion of debt with an average interest rate of 10.3 percent. By retiring unsecured debt with reorganized Calpine Corporation common stock and selling certain assets, Calpine was able to repay or refinance certain project debt, thereby reducing the prebankruptcy petition debt by approximately $7 billion. On exiting bankruptcy, Calpine negotiated approximately $7.3 billion of secured "exit facilities" (i.e., credit lines) from Goldman Sachs, Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, and Morgan Stanley. About $6.4 billion of these funds were used to satisfy cash payment obligations under the Plan of Reorganization. These obligations included the repayment of a portion of unsecured creditor claims and administrative claims, such as legal and consulting fees, as well as expenses incurred in connection with the "exit facilities" and immediate working capital requirements. On emerging from Chapter 11, the firm carried $10.4 billion of debt with an average interest rate of 8.1 percent.
The Enron Shuffle-A Scandal to Remember
What started in the mid-1980s as essentially a staid "old-economy" business became the poster child in the late 1990s for companies wanting to remake themselves into "new-economy" powerhouses. Unfortunately, what may have started with the best of intentions emerged as one of the biggest business scandals in U.S. history. Enron was created in 1985 as a result of a merger between Houston Natural Gas and Internorth Natural Gas. In 1989, Enron started trading natural gas commodities and eventually became the world's largest buyer and seller of natural gas. In the early 1990s, Enron became the nation's premier electricity marketer and pioneered the development of trading in such commodities as weather derivatives, bandwidth, pulp, paper, and plastics. Enron invested billions in its broadband unit and water and wastewater system management unit and in hard assets overseas. In 2000, Enron reported $101 billion in revenue and a market capitalization of $63 billion.
The Virtual Company
Enron was essentially a company whose trading and risk management business strategy was built on assets largely owned by others. The complex financial maneuvering and off-balance-sheet partnerships that former CEO Jeffrey K. Skilling and chief financial officer Andrew S. Fastow implemented were intended to remove everything from telecommunications fiber to water companies from the firm's balance sheet and into partnerships. What distinguished Enron's partnerships from those commonly used to share risks were their lack of independence from Enron and the use of Enron's stock as collateral to leverage the partnerships. If Enron's stock fell in value, the firm was obligated to issue more shares to the partnership to restore the value of the collateral underlying the debt or immediately repay the debt. Lenders in effect had direct recourse to Enron stock if at any time the partnerships could not repay their loans in full. Rather than limiting risk, Enron was assuming total risk by guaranteeing the loans with its stock.
Enron also engaged in transactions that inflated its earnings, such as selling time on its broadband system to a partnership at inflated prices at a time when the demand for broadband was plummeting. Enron then recorded a substantial profit on such transactions. The partnerships agreed to such transactions because Enron management seems to have exerted disproportionate influence in some instances over partnership decisions, although its ownership interests were very small, often less than 3 percent. Curiously, Enron's outside auditor, Arthur Andersen, had a dual role in these partnerships, collecting fees for helping to set them up and auditing them.
Time to Pay the Piper
At the time the firm filed for bankruptcy on December 2, 2001, it had $13.1 billion in debt on the books of the parent company and another $18.1 billion on the balance sheets of affiliated companies and partnerships. In addition to the partnerships created by Enron, a number of bad investments both in the United States and abroad contributed to the firm's malaise. Meanwhile, Enron's core energy distribution business was deteriorating. Enron was attempting to gain share in a maturing market by paring selling prices. Margins also suffered from poor cost containment.
Dynegy Corp. agreed to buy Enron for $10 billion on November 2, 2001. On November 8, Enron announced that its net income would have to be restated back to 1997, resulting in a $586 million reduction in reported profits. On November 15, chairman Kenneth Lay admitted that the firm had made billions of dollars in bad investments. Four days later, Enron said it would have to repay a $690 million note by mid-December and it might have to take an additional $700 million pretax charge. At the end of the month, Dynegy withdrew its offer and Enron's credit rating was reduced to junk bond status. Enron was responsible for another $3.9 billion owed by its partnerships. Enron had less than $2 billion in cash on hand.
The end came quickly as investors and customers completely lost faith in the energy behemoth as a result of its secrecy and complex financial maneuvers, forcing the firm into bankruptcy in early December. Enron's stock, which had reached a high of $90 per share on August 17, 2001, was trading at less than $1 by December 5, 2001.
In addition to its angry creditors, Enron faced class-action lawsuits by shareholders and employees, whose pensions were invested heavily in Enron stock. Enron also faced intense scrutiny from congressional committees and the U.S. Department of Justice. By the end of 2001, shareholders had lost more than $63 billion from its previous 52-week high, bondholders lost $2.6 billion in the face value of their debt, and banks appeared to be at risk on at least $15 billion of credit they had extended to Enron. In addition, potential losses on uncollateralized derivative contracts totaled $4 billion. Such contracts involved Enron commitments to buy various types of commodities at some point in the future.
Questions remain as to why Wall Street analysts, Arthur Andersen, federal or state regulatory authorities, the credit rating agencies, and the firm's board of directors did not sound the alarm sooner. It is surprising that the audit committee of the Enron board seems to have somehow been unaware of the firm's highly questionable financial maneuvers. Inquiries following the bankruptcy declaration seem to suggest that the audit committee followed all the rules stipulated by federal regulators and stock exchanges regarding director pay, independence, disclosure, and financial expertise. Enron seems to have collapsed in part because such rules did not do what they were supposed to do. For example, paying directors with stock may have aligned their interests with shareholders, but it also is possible to have been a disincentive to question aggressively senior management about their financial dealings.
The Lessons of Enron
Enron may be the best recent example of a complete breakdown in corporate governance, a system intended to protect shareholders. Inside Enron, the board of directors, management, and the audit function failed to do the job. Similarly, the firm's outside auditors, regulators, credit rating agencies, and Wall Street analysts also failed to alert investors. What seems to be apparent is that if the auditors fail to identify incompetence or fraud, the system of safeguards is likely to break down. The cost of failure to those charged with protecting the shareholders, including outside auditors, analysts, credit-rating agencies, and regulators, was simply not high enough to ensure adequate scrutiny.
What may have transpired is that company managers simply undertook aggressive interpretations of accounting principles then challenged auditors to demonstrate that such practices were not in accordance with GAAP accounting rules (Weil, 2002). This type of practice has been going on since the early 1980s and may account for the proliferation of specific accounting rules applicable only to certain transactions to insulate both the firm engaging in the transaction and the auditor reviewing the transaction from subsequent litigation. In one sense, the Enron debacle represents a failure of the free market system and its current shareholder protection mechanisms, in that it took so long for the dramatic Enron shell game to be revealed to the public. However, this incident highlights the remarkable resilience of the free market system. The free market system worked quite effectively in its rapid imposition of discipline in bringing down the Enron house of cards, without any noticeable disruption in energy distribution nationwide.
Epilogue
Due to the complexity of dealing with so many types of creditors, Enron filed its plan with the federal bankruptcy court to reorganize one and a half years after seeking bankruptcy protection on December 2, 2001. The resulting reorganization has been one of the most costly and complex on record, with total legal and consulting fees exceeding $500 million by the end of 2003. More than 350 classes of creditors, including banks, bondholders, and other energy companies that traded with Enron said they were owed about $67 billion.
Under the reorganization plan, unsecured creditors received an estimated 14 cents for each dollar of claims against Enron Corp., while those with claims against Enron North America received an estimated 18.3 cents on the dollar. The money came in cash payments and stock in two holding companies, CrossCountry containing the firm's North American pipeline assets and Prisma Energy International containing the firm's South American operations.
After losing its auditing license in 2004, Arthur Andersen, formerly among the largest auditing firms in the world, ceased operation. In 2006, Andrew Fastow, former Enron chief financial officer, and Lea Fastow plead guilty to several charges of conspiracy to commit fraud. Andrew Fastow received a sentence of 10 years in prison without the possibility of parole. His wife received a much shorter sentence. Also in 2006, Enron chairman Kenneth Lay died while awaiting sentencing, and Enron president Jeffery Skilling received a sentence of 24 years in prison.
Citigroup agreed in early 2008 to pay $1.66 billion to Enron creditors who lost money following the collapse of the firm. Citigroup was the last remaining defendant in what was known as the Mega Claims lawsuit, a bankruptcy lawsuit filed in 2003 against 11 banks and brokerages. The suit alleged that, with the help of banks, Enron kept creditors in the dark about the firm's financial problems through misleading accounting practices. Because of the Mega Claims suit, creditors recovered a total of $5 billion or about 37.4 cents on each dollar owed to them. This lawsuit followed the settlement of a $40 billion class action lawsuit by shareholders, which Citicorp settled in June 2005 for $2 billion.
How were the Enron partnerships used to hide debt and inflate the firm's earnings? Should
partnership structures be limited in the future? If so,how?

Question 75

Calpine Emerges from the Protection of Bankruptcy Court
Following approval of its sixth Plan of Reorganization by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, Calpine Corporation was able to emerge from Chapter 11 bankruptcy on January 31, 2008. Burdened by excessive debt and court battles with creditors on how to use its cash, the electric utility had sought Chapter 11 protection by petitioning the bankruptcy court in December 2005. After settlements with certain stakeholders, all classes of creditors voted to approve the Plan of Reorganization, which provided for the discharge of claims through the issuance of reorganized Calpine Corporation common stock, cash, or a combination of cash and stock to its creditors.
Shortly after exiting bankruptcy, Calpine cancelled all of its then outstanding common stock and authorized the issuance of 485 million shares of reorganized Calpine Corporation common stock for distribution to holders of unsecured claims. In addition, the firm issued warrants (i.e., securities) to purchase 48.5 million shares of reorganized Calpine Corporation common stock to the holders of the cancelled (i.e., previously outstanding) common stock. The warrants were issued on a pro rata basis reflecting the number of shares of "old common stock" held at the time of cancellation. These warrants carried an exercise price of $23.88 per share and expired on August 25, 2008. Relisted on the New York Stock Exchange, the reorganized Calpine Corporation common stock began trading under the symbol CPN on February 7, 2008, at about $18 per share.
The firm had improved its capital structure while in bankruptcy. On entering bankruptcy, Calpine carried $17.4 billion of debt with an average interest rate of 10.3 percent. By retiring unsecured debt with reorganized Calpine Corporation common stock and selling certain assets, Calpine was able to repay or refinance certain project debt, thereby reducing the prebankruptcy petition debt by approximately $7 billion. On exiting bankruptcy, Calpine negotiated approximately $7.3 billion of secured "exit facilities" (i.e., credit lines) from Goldman Sachs, Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, and Morgan Stanley. About $6.4 billion of these funds were used to satisfy cash payment obligations under the Plan of Reorganization. These obligations included the repayment of a portion of unsecured creditor claims and administrative claims, such as legal and consulting fees, as well as expenses incurred in connection with the "exit facilities" and immediate working capital requirements. On emerging from Chapter 11, the firm carried $10.4 billion of debt with an average interest rate of 8.1 percent.
The Enron Shuffle-A Scandal to Remember
What started in the mid-1980s as essentially a staid "old-economy" business became the poster child in the late 1990s for companies wanting to remake themselves into "new-economy" powerhouses. Unfortunately, what may have started with the best of intentions emerged as one of the biggest business scandals in U.S. history. Enron was created in 1985 as a result of a merger between Houston Natural Gas and Internorth Natural Gas. In 1989, Enron started trading natural gas commodities and eventually became the world's largest buyer and seller of natural gas. In the early 1990s, Enron became the nation's premier electricity marketer and pioneered the development of trading in such commodities as weather derivatives, bandwidth, pulp, paper, and plastics. Enron invested billions in its broadband unit and water and wastewater system management unit and in hard assets overseas. In 2000, Enron reported $101 billion in revenue and a market capitalization of $63 billion.
The Virtual Company
Enron was essentially a company whose trading and risk management business strategy was built on assets largely owned by others. The complex financial maneuvering and off-balance-sheet partnerships that former CEO Jeffrey K. Skilling and chief financial officer Andrew S. Fastow implemented were intended to remove everything from telecommunications fiber to water companies from the firm's balance sheet and into partnerships. What distinguished Enron's partnerships from those commonly used to share risks were their lack of independence from Enron and the use of Enron's stock as collateral to leverage the partnerships. If Enron's stock fell in value, the firm was obligated to issue more shares to the partnership to restore the value of the collateral underlying the debt or immediately repay the debt. Lenders in effect had direct recourse to Enron stock if at any time the partnerships could not repay their loans in full. Rather than limiting risk, Enron was assuming total risk by guaranteeing the loans with its stock.
Enron also engaged in transactions that inflated its earnings, such as selling time on its broadband system to a partnership at inflated prices at a time when the demand for broadband was plummeting. Enron then recorded a substantial profit on such transactions. The partnerships agreed to such transactions because Enron management seems to have exerted disproportionate influence in some instances over partnership decisions, although its ownership interests were very small, often less than 3 percent. Curiously, Enron's outside auditor, Arthur Andersen, had a dual role in these partnerships, collecting fees for helping to set them up and auditing them.
Time to Pay the Piper
At the time the firm filed for bankruptcy on December 2, 2001, it had $13.1 billion in debt on the books of the parent company and another $18.1 billion on the balance sheets of affiliated companies and partnerships. In addition to the partnerships created by Enron, a number of bad investments both in the United States and abroad contributed to the firm's malaise. Meanwhile, Enron's core energy distribution business was deteriorating. Enron was attempting to gain share in a maturing market by paring selling prices. Margins also suffered from poor cost containment.
Dynegy Corp. agreed to buy Enron for $10 billion on November 2, 2001. On November 8, Enron announced that its net income would have to be restated back to 1997, resulting in a $586 million reduction in reported profits. On November 15, chairman Kenneth Lay admitted that the firm had made billions of dollars in bad investments. Four days later, Enron said it would have to repay a $690 million note by mid-December and it might have to take an additional $700 million pretax charge. At the end of the month, Dynegy withdrew its offer and Enron's credit rating was reduced to junk bond status. Enron was responsible for another $3.9 billion owed by its partnerships. Enron had less than $2 billion in cash on hand.
The end came quickly as investors and customers completely lost faith in the energy behemoth as a result of its secrecy and complex financial maneuvers, forcing the firm into bankruptcy in early December. Enron's stock, which had reached a high of $90 per share on August 17, 2001, was trading at less than $1 by December 5, 2001.
In addition to its angry creditors, Enron faced class-action lawsuits by shareholders and employees, whose pensions were invested heavily in Enron stock. Enron also faced intense scrutiny from congressional committees and the U.S. Department of Justice. By the end of 2001, shareholders had lost more than $63 billion from its previous 52-week high, bondholders lost $2.6 billion in the face value of their debt, and banks appeared to be at risk on at least $15 billion of credit they had extended to Enron. In addition, potential losses on uncollateralized derivative contracts totaled $4 billion. Such contracts involved Enron commitments to buy various types of commodities at some point in the future.
Questions remain as to why Wall Street analysts, Arthur Andersen, federal or state regulatory authorities, the credit rating agencies, and the firm's board of directors did not sound the alarm sooner. It is surprising that the audit committee of the Enron board seems to have somehow been unaware of the firm's highly questionable financial maneuvers. Inquiries following the bankruptcy declaration seem to suggest that the audit committee followed all the rules stipulated by federal regulators and stock exchanges regarding director pay, independence, disclosure, and financial expertise. Enron seems to have collapsed in part because such rules did not do what they were supposed to do. For example, paying directors with stock may have aligned their interests with shareholders, but it also is possible to have been a disincentive to question aggressively senior management about their financial dealings.
The Lessons of Enron
Enron may be the best recent example of a complete breakdown in corporate governance, a system intended to protect shareholders. Inside Enron, the board of directors, management, and the audit function failed to do the job. Similarly, the firm's outside auditors, regulators, credit rating agencies, and Wall Street analysts also failed to alert investors. What seems to be apparent is that if the auditors fail to identify incompetence or fraud, the system of safeguards is likely to break down. The cost of failure to those charged with protecting the shareholders, including outside auditors, analysts, credit-rating agencies, and regulators, was simply not high enough to ensure adequate scrutiny.
What may have transpired is that company managers simply undertook aggressive interpretations of accounting principles then challenged auditors to demonstrate that such practices were not in accordance with GAAP accounting rules (Weil, 2002). This type of practice has been going on since the early 1980s and may account for the proliferation of specific accounting rules applicable only to certain transactions to insulate both the firm engaging in the transaction and the auditor reviewing the transaction from subsequent litigation. In one sense, the Enron debacle represents a failure of the free market system and its current shareholder protection mechanisms, in that it took so long for the dramatic Enron shell game to be revealed to the public. However, this incident highlights the remarkable resilience of the free market system. The free market system worked quite effectively in its rapid imposition of discipline in bringing down the Enron house of cards, without any noticeable disruption in energy distribution nationwide.
Epilogue
Due to the complexity of dealing with so many types of creditors, Enron filed its plan with the federal bankruptcy court to reorganize one and a half years after seeking bankruptcy protection on December 2, 2001. The resulting reorganization has been one of the most costly and complex on record, with total legal and consulting fees exceeding $500 million by the end of 2003. More than 350 classes of creditors, including banks, bondholders, and other energy companies that traded with Enron said they were owed about $67 billion.
Under the reorganization plan, unsecured creditors received an estimated 14 cents for each dollar of claims against Enron Corp., while those with claims against Enron North America received an estimated 18.3 cents on the dollar. The money came in cash payments and stock in two holding companies, CrossCountry containing the firm's North American pipeline assets and Prisma Energy International containing the firm's South American operations.
After losing its auditing license in 2004, Arthur Andersen, formerly among the largest auditing firms in the world, ceased operation. In 2006, Andrew Fastow, former Enron chief financial officer, and Lea Fastow plead guilty to several charges of conspiracy to commit fraud. Andrew Fastow received a sentence of 10 years in prison without the possibility of parole. His wife received a much shorter sentence. Also in 2006, Enron chairman Kenneth Lay died while awaiting sentencing, and Enron president Jeffery Skilling received a sentence of 24 years in prison.
Citigroup agreed in early 2008 to pay $1.66 billion to Enron creditors who lost money following the collapse of the firm. Citigroup was the last remaining defendant in what was known as the Mega Claims lawsuit, a bankruptcy lawsuit filed in 2003 against 11 banks and brokerages. The suit alleged that, with the help of banks, Enron kept creditors in the dark about the firm's financial problems through misleading accounting practices. Because of the Mega Claims suit, creditors recovered a total of $5 billion or about 37.4 cents on each dollar owed to them. This lawsuit followed the settlement of a $40 billion class action lawsuit by shareholders, which Citicorp settled in June 2005 for $2 billion.
What should (or can)be done to reduce the likelihood of this type of situation arising in the future? Be specific.

Question 76

Why would lenders be willing to lend to a firm emerging from Chapter 11? How did the lenders attempt to manage their risks? Be specific.

Question 77

The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Creditor Protection Act of 2005 is intended to achieve all of the following except:

A) To reduce the maximum length of time debtors have to submit a reorganization plan
B) To give debtors more time to accept or reject leases
C) To limit key employee compensation
D) To enable the debtor to extend the lease indefinitely as long as lease payments are made on a timely basis
E) B and D only

Question 78

In view of the substantial loss of jobs,as well as wage and benefit reductions,do you believe that
firms should be allowed to reorganize in bankruptcy? Explain your answer.

Question 79

Case Study Short-Essay Questions
Delta Airlines Rises from the Ashes
Key Points:
•Once in Chapter 11, a firm may be able to negotiate significant contract concessions with unions as well as its creditors.
•A restructured firm emerging from Chapter 11 often is a much smaller but more efficient operation than prior to its entry into bankruptcy.
______________________________________________________________________________________
On April 30, 2007, Delta Airlines emerged from bankruptcy leaner but still an independent carrier after a 19-month reorganization during which it successfully fought off a $10 billion hostile takeover attempt by US Airways. The challenge facing Delta's management was to convince creditors that it would become more valuable as an independent carrier than it would be as part of US Airways.
Ravaged by escalating jet fuel prices and intensified competition from low-fare, low-cost carriers, Delta had lost $6.1 billion since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack on the World Trade Center. The final crisis occurred in early August 2005 when the bank that was processing the airline's Visa and MasterCard ticket purchases started holding back money until passengers had completed their trips as protection in case of a bankruptcy filing. The bank was concerned that it would have to refund the passengers' ticket prices if the airline curtailed flights and the bank had to be reimbursed by the airline. This move by the bank cost the airline $650 million, further straining the carrier's already limited cash reserves. Delta's creditors were becoming increasingly concerned about the airline's ability to meet its financial obligations. Running out of cash and unable to borrow to satisfy current working capital requirements, the airline felt compelled to seek the protection of the bankruptcy court in late August 2005.
Delta's decision to declare bankruptcy occurred about the same time as a similar decision by Northwest Airlines. United Airlines and US Airways were already in bankruptcy. United had been in bankruptcy almost three years at the time Delta entered Chapter 11, and US Airways had been in bankruptcy court twice since the 9/11 terrorist attacks shook the airline industry. At the time Delta declared bankruptcy, about one-half of the domestic carrier capacity was operating under bankruptcy court oversight.
Delta underwent substantial restructuring of its operations. An important component of the restructuring effort involved turning over its underfunded pilot's pension plans to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC), a federal pension insurance agency, while winning concessions on wages and work rules from its pilots. The agreement with the pilot's union would save the airline $280 million annually, and the pilots would be paid 14 percent less than they were before the airline declared bankruptcy. To achieve an agreement with its pilots to transfer control of their pension plan to the PBGC, Delta agreed to give the union a $650 million interest-bearing note upon terminating and transferring the pension plans to the PBGC. The union would then use the airline's payments on the note to provide supplemental payments to members who would lose retirement benefits due to the PBGC limits on the amount of Delta's pension obligations it would be willing to pay. The pact covers more than 6,000 pilots.
The overhaul of Delta, the nation's third largest airline, left it a much smaller carrier than the one that sought protection of the bankruptcy court. Delta shed about one jet in six used by its mainline operations at the time of the bankruptcy filing, and it cut more than 20 percent of the 60,000 employees it had just prior to entering Chapter 11. Delta's domestic carrying capacity fell by about 10 percent since it petitioned for Chapter 11 reorganization, allowing it to fill about 84 percent of its seats on U.S. routes. This compared to only 72 percent when it filed for bankruptcy. The much higher utilization of its planes boosted revenue per mile flown by 15 percent since it entered bankruptcy, enabling the airline to better cover its fixed expenses. Delta also sold one of its "feeder" airlines, Atlantic Southeast Airlines, for $425 million.
Delta would have $2.5 billion in exit financing to fund operations and a cost structure of about $3 billion a year less than when it went into bankruptcy. The purpose of the exit financing facility is to repay the company's $2.1 billion debtor-in-possession credit facilities provided by GE Capital and American Express, make other payments required on exiting bankruptcy, and increase its liquidity position. With ten financial institutions providing the loans, the exit facility consisted of a $1.6 billion first-lien revolving credit line, secured by virtually all of the airline's unencumbered assets, and a $900 million second-lien term loan.
As required by the Plan of Reorganization approved by the Bankruptcy Court, Delta cancelled its preplan common stock on April 30, 2007. Holders of preplan common stock did not receive a distribution of any kind under the Plan of Reorganization. The company issued new shares of Delta common stock as payment of bankruptcy claims and as part of a postbankruptcy compensation program for Delta employees. Issued in May 2007, the new shares were listed on the New York Stock Exchange.
:
To what extent do you believe the factors contributing to the airline's bankruptcy were beyond the control of management? To what extent do you believe past airline mismanagement may have contributed to the bankruptcy?

Question 80

Identify what you believe to be the real benefits and costs of the bailout of General Motors? Be specific.