Last month, we asked our readers what they thought a bankruptcy court should do when presented with a post-auction bid in a materially higher amount after the conclusion of an auction that had been conducted properly in accordance with court-approved bidding procedures. A plurality of those responding (45%) believed that a bankruptcy court should reject the materially higher post-auction bid in the interest of preserving the process it had previously approved. Yet a significant block of those responding (36%) advocated a middle-ground, in which the court would re-open the auction and allow all bidders to participate in additional rounds of bidding. A distinct minority (13%), however, believed that the materially higher post-auction bid should be approved by the bankruptcy court because it represents a better outcome for the debtor’s estate. The rest of those responding (6%) provided write-in responses that offered additional thoughts or qualifications to their responses. Most suggested that the bankruptcy court should re-open the auction only if it found a justification other than price (e.g., irregularities in the auction process, grossly inadequate purchase price at the conclusion of the auction, or a valid excuse for the submission of a late bid). Others stressed the practical importance (presumably from the buyer’s perspective) of break-up fees and scheduling approval hearings for a time immediately after the auction. Still others looked back to the facts of Western Biomass, questioned whether the party claiming to be a “de facto stalking horse” should have appreciated the inherent risk of late and non-conforming bids until the sale was approved, and endorsed court approval of the materially higher post-auction bid.
In conclusion, our readers are split on the issue. Although the plurality of those responding believed that a bankruptcy court should preserve the process it had previously approved and reject a materially higher post-auction bid, the “re-open” contingent enjoyed a slight (3%) bump from write-in responses that supported re-opening the auction under certain conditions. As the official chair umpire for this back-and-forth, we are compelled to declare “Advantage Process.” The game, however, is far from over.
A special thank you to everyone who participated in the survey!
Copyright © 2019 Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, All Rights Reserved. The contents of this website may contain attorney advertising under the laws of various states. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP is headquartered in New York and has office locations in Beijing, Boston, Dallas, Frankfurt, Hong Kong, Houston, London, Miami, Munich, New York, Paris, Princeton, Shanghai, Silicon Valley, Warsaw, and Washington, D.C.