United States: Horizontal Gifting Upheld In Chapter 11 Plan In The Third Circuit

The Bottom Line

In Hargreaves v. Nuverra Environmental Solutions Inc. (In re Nuverra Environmental Solutions Inc.), 17-1024 (D. Del. Aug. 21, 2018), a Delaware district court upheld a bankruptcy court's ruling that the secured creditors' "gift" of cash and stock to holders of unsecured claims pursuant to a Chapter 11 plan did not violate the confirmation standards for approving a plan under Chapter 11, even though certain classes of unsecured claims (trade and business-related unsecured claims) received larger distributions from the gift than another class of unsecured claims (noteholders). The decision focuses on the permissible effect of "horizontal" gifting whereby the disparate treatment is among separate classes of the same priority level of creditors — here, separately classified general unsecured claims.

What Happened?

In this case, Nuverra Environmental Solutions Inc. and its 13 affiliated debtors filed a joint prepackaged plan of reorganization that contemplated secured creditors, who were not projected to receive 100 percent recovery on account of their allowed secured claims, making a voluntary payment ("gift") in the form of cash and stock, otherwise distributable to the secured creditors, to general unsecured creditors who would otherwise not receive any distribution under the Bankruptcy Code's waterfall priority scheme. The gifting, however, distinguished between the types of unsecured creditors by providing a disparate gift treatment. Specifically, the plan included a class of general unsecured creditors, made up of noteholders, receiving an aggregate recovery of only approximately 4 – 6 percent of their claims while trade and other general unsecured creditors, separately classified, received 100 percent recovery on account of the gifted distribution. The noteholder class voted against the plan and argued that the plan's distribution scheme unfairly discriminated against them (as compared with the trade and other unsecured creditors) in violation of § 1129 of the Bankruptcy Code. The bankruptcy court disagreed that the disparate effect of the gifting was an unfair discrimination by the Debtors.

A noteholder appealed, arguing, among other things, that the plan unfairly discriminated against his class of claims since other unsecured creditors in separate classes would receive 100 percent recovery. The Debtors argued that the plan "treated unsecured creditors in distinct ways based upon their respective legal rights, their importance to the ongoing operation and the profitability of the Debtors' businesses, and the practical limitations impeding the Debtors' ability to provide such creditors with a recovery." In re Nuverra Environmental Solutions Inc., 17-1024, *3 (D. Del. Aug. 21, 2018).

On appeal, the district court first concluded that the appeal was equitably moot, but nonetheless went on to address the merits of the appeal. The court began its analysis of the merits by noting that the Third Circuit has not yet articulated a standard to apply when assessing whether a plan discriminates unfairly in such a way that would prevent the plan from being confirmed under § 1129(b)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code. However, the court acknowledged that courts in the Third Circuit have applied the Markell test set forth by Bruce A. Markell, A New Perspective on Unfair Discrimination in Chapter II, 72 Am. Bankr. L.J. 227, 249 (1998), which establishes a rebuttable presumption of unfair discrimination when there is:

(1) a dissenting class; (2) another class of the same priority; and (3) a difference in the plan's treatment of the two classes that results in either (a) a materially lower percentage recovery for the dissenting class (measured in terms of the net present value of all payments), or (b) regardless of percentage recovery, an allocation under the plan of materially greater risk to the dissenting class in connection with its proposed distribution.

Id. at *20-21 (citing In re Tribune Co., 472 B.R. 223, 244 (Bankr. D. Del. 2012) and In re Genesis Health Ventures, Inc., 266 B.R. 591, 612 (Bankr. D. Del. 2001)). The bankruptcy court had applied the Markell test and concluded that a rebuttable presumption of unfair discrimination had arisen but was rebutted, specifically because (i) no unsecured creditor was entitled to any distribution under the Bankruptcy Code's priority scheme and (ii) the proposed treatment and classification of unsecured creditors facilitated a reorganization of the Debtors. Even though the bankruptcy court applied the Markell test, the district court observed that the Markell test did not address this situation in which the disparate treatment was occurring among classes receiving recoveries solely as a gift from a senior class. Yet the district court found that the bankruptcy court did not err in its application of the Markell test since in Genesis Health Ventures, a Delaware bankruptcy court also applied the Markell test and found that the presumption of unfair discrimination was rebutted where the distribution that led to the disparate treatment resulted from senior lenders agreeing to allocate a portion of value they would have otherwise been entitled to receive. Therefore, the district court concluded that here the bankruptcy court's Markell analysis was consistent with the Genesis Health Ventures court's analysis of "virtually identical facts," and thus found no error in the bankruptcy court's conclusion that the plan did not unfairly discriminate.

Next, the district court addressed the noteholder's argument that in the rulings following Genesis Health Ventures, appellate courts have held that a plan may not circumvent § 1129(b) through the use of gifting. In response, the Debtors argued that there is a distinction between "vertical gifting," where a class of claims is deprived of a gift while a more junior class receives a gift, and "horizontal gifting," where two or more classes of claims that are pari passu in priority receive a gift but the gifting distribution may vary among the classes. The Debtors argued that cases, such as In re Armstrong World Indus., Inc., 348 B.R. 111, 121 (D. Del. 2006), did not flatly reject the concept of gifting but rather rejected vertical gifting in which a junior class of claims (such as equity) received a gifting distribution while a more senior class (such as general unsecured claims) is deprived of a gift (i.e., vertical gifting). In that instance, the Debtors argued, the gift would be skipping a class of claims in violation of the absolute priority rule. But since equity, the class junior to the general unsecured claims here, did not receive a distribution under the plan, the Debtors argued that the absolute priority rule was not implicated, and thus, there was no vertical gifting. The district court agreed with the Debtors' argument, noting that courts in the Third Circuit have held that a horizontal gift is not unfair discrimination against the class that does not receive the larger gift.

Finally, the district court addressed the general unsecured claimant's argument that the plan improperly classified his noteholder claims separately from other general unsecured claims. The district court noted that courts have (i) held that there is significant flexibility in classifying claims, (ii) permitted separate classification of trade claims from noteholder claims since such claims are legally distinct, and (iii) allowed trade claims to be separately classified from other general unsecured claims when trade claims are essential to a reorganized debtor's ongoing business. According to the district court, the record supported the bankruptcy court's finding that it was necessary to separately classify the trade and business-related unsecured claims to preserve the reorganized debtors' ongoing business. Furthermore, according to the district court, nothing in the record suggested that the noteholder's claims were classified separately from other general unsecured claims arbitrarily or for fraudulent purposes.

Why This Case Is Interesting

Debtors looking to pursue a reorganization may seek to provide a recovery to certain types of creditors (such as trade) within a class, but not others. Such discrimination is not permissible for value distributed by the debtor's estate under a plan. Gifting has been a technique — subject to criticism (especially when class skipping is involved) — to provide disparate treatment. While the Third Circuit has not ruled on gifting, this latest Delaware district court decision supports the use of horizontal gifting. Such a decision will certainly be the focus of attention by supporters and critics of gifting.

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

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

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

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

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

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

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

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

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

Please indicate your preference below:

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

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

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

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

Use of www.mondaq.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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