Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
7241975 v3 7241975 v3 7241975 v3
SILLS CUMMIS & GROSS P.C. S. Jason Teele, Esq. Gregory A. Kopacz, Esq. 101 Park Avenue, 28th Floor New York, New York 10178 (212) 643-7000 (Telephone) Proposed counsel to the Debtors and Debtors-in-Possession UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
In re: THE NORTHWEST COMPANY, LLC, et al.1 Debtors.
Chapter 11 Case No. 20-10990 (MEW)
(Jointly Administered)
MOTION OF THE DEBTORS FOR AN ORDER APPROVING AGREEMENT WITH THE OFFICIAL COMMITTEE OF UNSECURED CREDITORS GOVERNING (I)
RULE 2004 INVESTIGATION AND (II) JOINT MARKETING AND SALE PROCESS
The Northwest Company LLC and The Northwest.com LLC (collectively, the “Debtors”),
by their undersigned attorneys, move (the “Motion”) for entry of an order substantially in the form
attached hereto as Exhibit A (the “Proposed Order”), pursuant to sections 105(a), 363(b) and
365(a) of Title 11 of the United States Code, 11 U.S.C. §§ 101–1532 (the “Bankruptcy Code”),
and Rules 2002, 2004, 6004 and 6006 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (the
“Bankruptcy Rules”) approving an agreement between the Debtors and the Official Committee
of Unsecured Creditors (the “Committee”)2 governing (i) Bankruptcy Rule 2004 Investigation and
(ii) Joint Marketing and Sale Process, and respectfully submit:
1 The Debtors in these chapter 11 cases, along with the last four digits of each Debtor’s federal tax identification number, are: The Northwest Company, LLC (8132) and The Northwest.com LLC (1339). The location of the Debtors’ service address is: 49 Bryant Avenue, Roslyn, New York 11576. 2 The members of the Committee are: Exeter 4755 Southpoint, LLC; Standard Fiber, LLC; NFL Properties LLC; Major League Baseball Properties, Inc.; and Collegiate Licensing Company.
20-10990-mew Doc 96 Filed 05/22/20 Entered 05/22/20 09:18:28 Main Document Pg 1 of 27
-2-
7241975 v3
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334
and the Amended Standing Order of Reference from the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, dated as of January 31, 2012. This is a core proceeding pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2).
2. Venue of the Bankruptcy Cases and this Motion is proper in this District pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409.
3. The statutory predicates for the relief requested herein are sections 105(a), 363(b),
and 365(a) of title 11 of the Bankruptcy Code and Rules 2002, 2004, 6004 and 6006 of the
Bankruptcy Rules.
4. The Debtors consent to the entry of a final judgment or order with respect to this
Motion if it is determined that this Court would lack Article III jurisdiction to enter such final order
or judgment absent the consent of the parties.
RELIEF REQUESTED
5. By this Motion, the Debtors request that the Court enter an order, in substantially
in the form of the Proposed Order, authorizing the Debtors to enter into an agreement with the
Committee authorizing (i) the Committee to conduct an investigation pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule
2004 and pursue any causes of action it determines exist therefrom and (ii) joint authority for the
Committee to co-run the forthcoming marketing and sale process, as described in the Term Sheet
attached hereto as Exhibit C.
BACKGROUND
A. The Chapter 11 Cases
6. On April 18, 2020 (the “Petition Date”), each of the Debtors filed a voluntary
petition for relief under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court
for the Southern District of New York (the “Court”) commencing the above-captioned chapter 11
cases (the “Chapter 11 Cases”). The Debtors continue to operate their business and manage their
properties as debtors-in-possession pursuant to sections 1107(a) and 1108 of the Bankruptcy Code.
20-10990-mew Doc 96 Filed 05/22/20 Entered 05/22/20 09:18:28 Main Document Pg 2 of 27
-3-
7241975 v3
7. No examiner or trustee has been appointed the Chapter 11 Cases. However, on May
12, 2020, Ashford Textile LLC and Extreme Horse Limited filed a Joint Motion for the
Appointment of an Examiner or, in the Alternative, a Chapter 11 Trustee (the “Ashford/Extreme
Motion”). See Docket No. 63.
8. On April 30, 2020, the Office of the United States Trustee for Region 2 appointed
the Committee. See Docket. No. 41. The Committee has retained Lowenstein Sandler LLP as its
attorneys and Emerald Capital as its financial advisor. See Docket Nos. 61, 81.
9. A description of the Debtors’ business and reasons for commencing the Chapter 11
Cases is set forth in the Declaration In Support Of Chapter 11 Petitions And First Day Pleadings.
See Docket No. 8.
B. The Ashford/Extreme Motion
10. The Ashford/Extreme Motion requests the appointment of an examiner to
investigate the allegations contained in the CBIZ report. In the alternative, the Ashford/Extreme
Motion requests the appointment of a chapter 11 trustee.
11. The Debtors dispute the movant’s factual grounds for the relief sought and object
to the necessity to appoint an examiner or a chapter 11 trustee. The Debtors will file an appropriate
objection to the Ashford/Extreme Motion on or before the deadline established by the Court.
12. The Debtors also submit that the agreement with the Committee described herein
appropriately addresses the issues raised in the Ashford/Extreme Motion, and that the
Ashford/Extreme Motion is made moot as a result. By separate application, the Debtors are
requesting that the Court adjourn the hearing on the Ashford/Extreme Motion, currently scheduled
for June 4, 2020, and all associated discovery3, until the Court rules on this Motion.
3 Ashford/Extreme have served extensive document requests on The Northwest Company LLC and non-debtors Northwest Textiles LLC and Ross Auerbach. The Debtors will need to devote substantial time and resources to responding to those requests. Ashford/Extreme also noticed depositions of Ross Auerbach and Robert Jolson, the Debtors’ chief financial officer. This discovery is duplicative of the discovery the Debtors agreed to provide to the Committee under the terms of the parties’ agreement, and is therefore unnecessary.
20-10990-mew Doc 96 Filed 05/22/20 Entered 05/22/20 09:18:28 Main Document Pg 3 of 27
-4-
7241975 v3
B. The Agreement between the Debtors and Committee
13. Despite its disagreement with the factual and legal bases underpinning the
Ashford/Extreme Motion, the Debtors appreciated the import of the movant’s allegations. The
Debtors wish to confront those allegations head on to dispel any notion regarding mismanagement
or misconduct. Likewise, the Committee understood the seriousness accompanying such
allegations, and it took swift action to address them.
14. The Committee expressed its views about the troubling nature of the
Ashford/Extreme Motion in correspondence to the Debtors and Ashford/Extreme dated May 15,
2020. See Exhibit B. The Committee concluded that “a thorough investigation into potential
causes of action against Ross Auerbach and other insiders is critical” but believes that “the
appointment of an examiner is not necessary (nor mandatory) in this case.” Id. at 1. The Committee
suggested that the issues the Ashford/Extreme Motion seeks to have investigated by an examiner
are “matters that creditors’ committees customarily investigate”. Id. Because the Committee is an
independent fiduciary of the Debtors’ estates, the Committee proposed that it should conduct the
investigation. Its motivation to conduct the investigation and the significant cost-savings realized
by avoiding the appointment of an examiner, were among the benefits cited for by the Committee
for empowering it to conduct an investigation. Id. at 2. To address the issue raised by
Ashford/Extreme concerning the fairness and propriety of the sale process, the Committee also
suggested that its financial adviser should co-run that process with a chief restructuring officer and
independent manager to be appointed. Id. Essentially, the Committee proposed an effective
alternative to the relief requested in the Ashford/Extreme Motion that fully addresses the concerns
raised in it, while avoiding the cost to the estates of an examiner.
15. The Debtors believed that much of the Committee’s proposal had merit.
Committees routinely investigate a host of issues, including potential claims and causes of action
against insiders, management, and other parties. In light of allegations made at the first day hearing
in these Chapter 11 Cases and in the Ashford/Extreme Motion, the Debtors fully expected that the
Committee would conduct an investigation of Ross Auerbach and others as part of a broader
20-10990-mew Doc 96 Filed 05/22/20 Entered 05/22/20 09:18:28 Main Document Pg 4 of 27
-5-
7241975 v3
investigation of the Debtors’ assets and potential causes of action. In addition, committees often
have significant involvement in a debtor’s marketing and sale efforts. Debtors routinely agree to
consult with committees about the sale process and before making important decisions, such as
determining whether a party is a “qualified” bidder and deciding which bid to select as the “highest
and best” offer after an auction. Accordingly, the Debtors were prepared to cooperate with the
Committee while it conducted its investigation and intended to permit the Committee to have a
significant role in the sale process. It is also worth noting that the appointment of an examiner with
expanded powers constitutes an event of default under the Debtors’ post-petition factoring
arrangement with its secured lender.
16. While the Committee’s proposal had merit, it included certain provisions that the
Debtors believed were inappropriate given the circumstances of these Chapter 11 Cases.
Specifically, the Debtors believed it would be inappropriate – and unduly prejudicial to their
business – to appoint an independent member, selected by the Committee and Ashford/Extreme,
solely on the basis of the unproved allegations contained in a hearsay document and repeated in
the Ashford/Extreme Motion. The Debtors have not had an opportunity to fully respond to those
allegations. Significantly, the allegations are made by two related parties that are plainly motivated
by their own legal interests rather than the interests of the Debtors or their creditors. Perhaps more
important, the allegations are unproved. They are principally based on the CBIZ Report that was
prepared at the direction of Ashford. Upon the insistence of Ashford, the Debtors retained CBIZ
to prepare the report, but a copy of it was never provided to them. The CBIZ report was delivered
to the Debtors for the first time by counsel for Extreme Horse (not Ashford or CBIZ) just moments
before the first day hearing in these Chapter 11 Cases was scheduled to begin. Finally, as is
partially the concern with the appointment of an examiner, the Debtors believe that an independent
member would create an unnecessary administrative expense.
17. Likewise, the Debtors believed that the expense of a chief restructuring officer was
unnecessary because there were adequate measures in place designed to avoid even the appearance
of impropriety by management. Those measures include the retention of Clear Thinking Group to
20-10990-mew Doc 96 Filed 05/22/20 Entered 05/22/20 09:18:28 Main Document Pg 5 of 27
-6-
7241975 v3
serve as the Debtors’ financial advisors. Clear Thinking Group is a respected firm whose
professionals have proven experience advising debtors in complex chapter 11 cases. In addition to
providing financial advisory services to the Debtors on matters of bankruptcy process and strategy,
Clear Thinking Group’s mandate is to ensure that the Debtors comply with their financial reporting
obligations to the Court, the United States Trustee, the Debtors’ post-petition lender, the
Committee and other parties. Among other things, Clear Thinking Group prepared the 13-week
forecast under the post-petition financing (and the revised forecasts), reviews the Debtors’ monthly
operating reports and is closely involved with the preparation of the Debtors’ Schedules of Assets
and Liabilities and Statements of Financial Affairs. In addition, Clear Thinking Group reviews and
approves the Debtors’ weekly funding requests that are submitted to the post-petition lender to
support loan advances. Each weekly funding request itemizes all disbursements the Debtors plan
to make in the forthcoming week (regardless of the amount of a disbursement). A disbursement is
made only if it is included in an approved weekly funding request.
18. Moreover, the nature of the chapter 11 process places the Debtors under the intense
scrutiny of a number of parties, including the Court, the United States Trustee, Committee, the
Debtors post-petition lender, and others. Virtually every facet of the Debtors’ operations is subject
to formal and informal reporting.
19. For these and other reasons, the Debtors disagreed with the Committee’s proposal
to appoint a chief restructuring offer.
20. The Debtors and Committee met and conferred about the Committee’s proposal.
As a result of those discussions, the parties agreed to a protocol that meaningfully addresses the
issues raised in the Ashford/Extreme Motion in a way that the Committee felt was appropriate.
The terms of the Debtors’ agreement with the Committee are set forth in a term sheet dated May
21, 2020 and attached hereto as Exhibit C. The salient terms of the parties’ agreement are as
follows:4
4 This summary is qualified in its entirety by the Term Sheet. To the extent of any conflicts between this summary and the Term Sheet, the Term Sheet shall control.
20-10990-mew Doc 96 Filed 05/22/20 Entered 05/22/20 09:18:28 Main Document Pg 6 of 27
-7-
7241975 v3
Provisions for a Thorough, Unfettered Investigation and the Pursuit of Claims:
The Committee is authorized to investigate all matters that it, in its sole discretion, deems relevant, including, but not limited to, allegations of misconduct by Ross H. Auerbach, contained in the Ashford/Extreme Motion.
The Committee’s investigation will be thorough but timely, and will conclude no later than thirty (30) days after the Court enters an order approving a sale of the Debtors’ assets.
The Debtors, and all of its directors, officers and employees, including Ross H. Auerbach, agree to fully cooperate with the Committee’s investigation and will promptly respond to requests for information and/or documents without compulsory process.
Subject to the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine, the Debtors will comply with requests for information served by the Committee.
The Committee may interview employees of the Debtors on reasonable notice to the Debtors. The Debtors will produce such employees for interview on the date contained in the Committee’s notice or such other date as the Debtors and Committee agree. The Committee may also notice an examination of any employee of the Debtors pursuant to Fed. R. Bank. P. 2004, including individuals previously interviewed.
The Committee may issue subpoenas pursuant to Fed. R. Bank. P. 2004 on non-parties without further order or notice.
The Committee will have exclusive standing to bring any cause of action, and to settle any cause of action, it determines should be commenced based on the findings of the investigation.
Provisions for Oversight and Co-Management of the Sale Process:
The Committee will co-run the sale process with the Debtors’ investment banker.5
The Committee’s professionals will have full access to the data room created for the sale process.
The Committee’s financial advisor will be authorized to contact parties they believe may be interested in the Debtors’ assets. To avoid duplication and market confusion, the Committee’s financial advisor shall provide the Debtors’ investment banker with a list of the parties they intend to contact and shall coordinate any outreach efforts with the Debtors’ investment banker.
The Committee’s professionals (counsel and financial advisor) will be permitted to participate in sale-related conference calls with potential bidders; provided that
5 The Debtors intend to request Court approval to retain MMG Capital Advisors as their investment banker.
20-10990-mew Doc 96 Filed 05/22/20 Entered 05/22/20 09:18:28 Main Document Pg 7 of 27
-8-
7241975 v3
participation would not result in a conflict of interest on the part of any member of the Committee or any of the Committee’s professionals with respect to a specific potential bidder. Appropriate screening procedures will be implemented to avoid improper disclosure of information.
The Debtors’ advisors (including their investment banker) will regularly consult with the Committee’s advisors. Moreover, the Committee’s financial advisor will be authorized to freely interact with the Debtors’ investment banker.
The Debtors’ professionals (including their investment banker) promptly provide copies of all bids and other information received from bidders to the Committee’s professionals.
The Debtors may designate a bidder as a stalking horse bidder only upon consultation with the Committee and post-petition lender and the consent of the Committee.
The Debtors may designate a bidder or a bid as “qualified” pursuant to bid procedures approved by the Court only upon consultation with the Committee and post-petition lender and the consent of the Committee.
If more than one qualified bid is received by the applicable bid deadline, the Debtors and Committee will co-run the auction at the time and place specified in the Court’s order approving bid procedures. The Debtors will consult with the Committee and post-petition lender concerning conduct of the auction, and may, only upon the Committee’s consent, value any bid for bidding purposes and, subject to the order approving bid procedures, waive or change any procedure regarding the conduct of the auction (i.e., bid increments).
At the conclusion of the auction, the Debtors, upon consultation with the committee and post-petition lender and with the consent of the Committee, may select the “highest and best” bid as the winning bid and the next “highest and best” bid as the back-up bid. The parties agree that they will use best efforts to resolve any disagreement as to which bid is “highest and best”. In the event the Debtors and Committee do not agree on the selection of the “highest and best bid”, each party will recommend the bid that they believe is “highest and best” to the Court at the hearing to approve the sale.
Provisions for Additional Oversight of the Debtors’ Management and Operations:
The Debtors and/or Clear Thinking Group will concurrently share with the Committee’s financial advisor any materials, updates, or reports provided to the post-petition lender.
The Debtors will revise the proposed order granting its application to retain Clear Thinking Group as financial advisor [Docket No. 73] to include the following provision:
Consistent with current practice, the Debtors, through their controller or chief financial officer, shall provide a weekly funding request to Clear Thinking Group for review, consultation and approval. Other than disbursements required by an order of the
20-10990-mew Doc 96 Filed 05/22/20 Entered 05/22/20 09:18:28 Main Document Pg 8 of 27
-9-
7241975 v3
Court, the Debtor may disburse funds only for the purposes set forth in a weekly funding request reviewed and approved by Clear Thinking Group.
21. For the reasons discussed herein, the Debtors and Committee submit that their
agreement fully addresses the issues raised in the Ashford/Extreme Motion comprehensively,
meaningfully and efficiently.
BASES FOR RELIEF
22. It is axiomatic that a creditors’ committee may investigate the acts, conduct and
any other issue relevant to the case. See 11 U.S.C. § 1103(c)(2). Committees may also “raise and
may appear and be heard on any issue” in a case. See 11 U.S.C. § 1109(b).
23. Moreover, under section 363(b)(1) of the bankruptcy Code, a debtor may use
property of the estate “other than in the ordinary course of business” only with the approval of the
Court after notice and a hearing. The purpose of requiring notice and a hearing is to “assure
interested persons of an opportunity to be heard concerning transactions different from that might
be expected to take place so long as the debtor in possession is allowed to continue normal business
operations… .” See In re James A. Phillips, Inc., 29 B.R.391, 395 (S.D.N.Y. 1983). “Courts apply
the deferential business judgment test when analyzing transactions under § 363(b)(1).” Comm. of
Equity Security Holders v. Lionel Corp. (In re Lionel Corp.), 722 F.2d 1063, 1071 (2d Cir. 1983).
The business judgment test asks whether the debtor has proved that the transaction at issue is
“within the fair and reasonable business judgment of the Debtors and thus within the zone of
acceptability.” In re Dana Corp. (Dana II), 358 B.R. 567, 571 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2006).
24. Here, the Debtors have articulated a clear business justification for entering into the
proposed agreement with the Committee. In agreeing to allow the Committee – which is an
independent fiduciary of the estates with statutory rights to investigate and be heard – the Debtors
and Committee have created a protocol that allows for a through and comprehensive investigation
of the issues raised by the Ashford/Extreme Motion. Importantly, the investigation is meaningful
because the parties agreement provides the Committee with the right to investigate unfettered by
the Debtors and the power to bring any claims identified as a result of the investigation. Moreover,
20-10990-mew Doc 96 Filed 05/22/20 Entered 05/22/20 09:18:28 Main Document Pg 9 of 27
-10-
7241975 v3
the parties’ agreement substantially involves the Committee in the sale process and grants it the
right to consent (or to withhold consent) before crucial decisions are made. This oversight will
ensure that the sale process is open and fair, and that any offer ultimately accepted by the Debtors
represents the highest and best offer available. Finally, the agreement provides the Committee with
significant access to the Debtors’ advisors, reporting issued by the Debtors to its post-petition
lender, and memorializes the practice of requiring the consent of Clear Thinking Group with
respect to all disbursements. At the same time, the agreement ensures that the Debtors will remain
viable throughout the Chapter 11 Cases by avoiding the extraordinary costs associated with the
appointment of an examiner and the appointment of an independent manager and chief
restructuring officer. Finally, the relationship that maximizing the value of the Debtors’ assets has
to continuity of management during a delicate time in the Debtors’ history, is not insignificant.
25. While the Debtors’ agreement with the Committee is not an executory contract that
is subject to assumption under section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code, the reasoning behind the
standard a debtor must meet before assuming a contract is instructive in this context. As is the case
under section 363(b)(1), courts reviewing a debtor’s decision to assume or reject an executory
contract or unexpired lease apply a business judgment standard. See In re Federated Dept. Stores,
Inc., 131 B.R. 808, 811 (S.D. Ohio 1991) (“Courts traditionally have applied the business judgment
standard in determining whether to authorize the rejection of executory contracts and unexpired
leases”). Debtors receive considerable discretion in determining whether to assume or reject an
executory contract. Stanziale v. Machtomi (In re Tower Air, Inc.), 416 F.3d 229, 238 (3d Cir.
2005).
26. Once “the debtor articulates a reasonable basis for its business decisions (as distinct
from a decision made arbitrarily or capriciously), courts will generally not entertain objections to
the debtor's conduct.” Comm. of Asbestos-Related Litigants and/or Creditors v. Johns-Manville
Corp. (In re Johns-Manville Corp.), 60 B.R. 612, 616 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1986). Accordingly, so
long as a debtor exercises “reasonable” business judgment, a court should approve the proposed
assumption or rejection. See, e.g., NLRB v. Bildisco & Bildisco, 465 U.S. 513, 523 (1984).
20-10990-mew Doc 96 Filed 05/22/20 Entered 05/22/20 09:18:28 Main Document Pg 10 of 27
-11-
7241975 v3
27. For the same reasons discussed above, the Debtors’ submit that they have
articulated a reasonable basis for entering into the agreement with the Committee. Therefore, the
Court should not seriously entertain objections to that decision.
28. Bankruptcy Rule 2004(a) provides that “[o]n motion of any party in interest, the
court may order the examination of any entity.” Fed. R. Bankr. P. The scope of such examination
may relate to “the acts, conduct, or property or to the liabilities and financial condition of the
debtor, or to any matter which may affect the administration of the debtor’s estate.” Fed. R. Bankr.
P. 2004(b). The purpose of a Bankruptcy Rule 2004 examination is to assist a party in interest in
determining the nature and extent of the bankruptcy estate, revealing assets, and examining
transactions. See In re Washington Mut., Inc., 408 B.R. 45, 50 (Bankr. D. Del. 2009); see also In
re Recoton Corp., 307 B.R. 751, 755 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2004)
29. Finally, pursuant to section 105(a) of the bankruptcy Code, the Court has the power
to enter any order “that is necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions of [the Bankruptcy
Code].” 11 U.S.C. § 105(a). The Debtors submit that approving the agreement with the Committee
is a proper exercise of the Court’s equitable power under section 105 because, among other
reasons, the agreement addresses important issues by granting authority to the Committee that the
that the Court is otherwise authorized to implement under various section of the Bankruptcy Code
and Bankruptcy Rules.
WAIVER OF BANKRUPTCY RULES 6004(a), 6004(h) AND 6006(d)
30. Given the nature of the relief requested herein, and to successfully implement the
Restructuring Transactions, the Debtors respectfully request a waiver of (i) the notice requirements
under Bankruptcy Rule 6004(a), (ii) the 14-day stay under Bankruptcy Rule 6004(h), to the extent
that either subsection of Rule 6004 is applicable, and (iii) the 14-day stay of an order applicable to
assignment of an unexpired executory contract under Bankruptcy Rule 6006(d), to the extent
applicable.
20-10990-mew Doc 96 Filed 05/22/20 Entered 05/22/20 09:18:28 Main Document Pg 11 of 27
-12-
7241975 v3
NOTICE
31. Notice of this Motion has been given to (i) the Office of the United States Trustee
for Region 2; (ii) the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors; (iii) CIT Group/Commercial
Services, Inc.; (iv) applicable governmental units; and (v) those parties who have filed a notice of
appearance and request for service of pleadings in these Chapter 11 Cases pursuant to Bankruptcy
Rule 2002. In light of the nature of the relief requested herein, the Debtors submit that no other or
further notice is required.
CONCLUSION
32. Based on the circumstances and authorities cited above, the Debtors respectfully
request that the Court enter an order, substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A,
granting the Motion and granting the Debtors such other and further relief as it deems just.
Dated: May 22, 2020 SILLS CUMMIS & GROSS P.C.
/s/ S. Jason Teele S. Jason Teele, Esq. Gregory A. Kopacz, Esq. 101 Park Avenue, 28th Floor New York, New York 10178 (212) 643-7000 (Telephone) Proposed counsel to the Debtors and Debtors-in-Possession
20-10990-mew Doc 96 Filed 05/22/20 Entered 05/22/20 09:18:28 Main Document Pg 12 of 27
7241975 v3 7241975 v3 7241975 v3
EXHIBIT A (Proposed Order)
20-10990-mew Doc 96 Filed 05/22/20 Entered 05/22/20 09:18:28 Main Document Pg 13 of 27
7241975 v3 7241975 v3 7241975 v3
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
In re: THE NORTHWEST COMPANY, LLC, et al.6 Debtors.
Chapter 11 Case No. 20-10990 (MEW)
(Jointly Administered)
ORDER GRANTING MOTION OF THE DEBTORS FOR AN ORDER APPROVING AGREEMENT WITH THE OFFICIAL COMMITTEE OF UNSECURED CREDITORS GOVERNING (I) RULE 2004 INVESTIGATION AND (II) JOINT MARKETING AND
SALE PROCESS
Upon the motion of the above-captioned debtors and debtors-in-possession (collectively,
the “Debtors”), for entry of an order, pursuant to sections 105(a), 363(b) and 365(a) of Title 11 of
the United States Code, 11 U.S.C. §§ 101–1532 (the “Bankruptcy Code”), and Rules 2002, 2004,
6004 and 6006 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (the “Bankruptcy Rules”,)
approving an agreement between the Debtors and the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors
(the “Committee”) governing (i) Bankruptcy Rule 2004 Investigation and (ii) Joint Marketing and
Sale Process; and this Court having jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and
1334 and the Amended Standing Order of Reference from the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, dated January 31, 2012; and this Court having the power to enter
a final order consistent with Article III of the United States Constitution; and this Court having
found that venue of this proceeding and the Motion in this district is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1408 and 1409; and this Court having found that the Debtors’ notice of the Motion and
opportunity for a hearing on the Motion were appropriate under the circumstances and no other
notice need be provided; and this Court having reviewed the Motion and having heard argument
6 The Debtors in these chapter 11 cases, along with the last four digits of each Debtor’s federal tax identification number, are: The Northwest Company, LLC (8132) and The Northwest.com LLC (1339). The location of the Debtors’ service address is: 49 Bryant Avenue, Roslyn, New York 11576.
20-10990-mew Doc 96 Filed 05/22/20 Entered 05/22/20 09:18:28 Main Document Pg 14 of 27
-2- 7241975 v3
with respect thereto at a hearing before this Court (the “Hearing”); and this Court having
determined that the legal and factual bases set forth in the Motion and at the Hearing establish just
cause for the relief granted herein; and upon all of the proceedings had before this Court; and after
due deliberation and sufficient cause appearing therefor, it is
ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT:
33. The Motion is granted as set forth herein.
34. The Term Sheet attached to the Motion as Exhibit B is approved and the terms
thereof are incorporated herein.
35. The Committee shall be authorized pursuant to Fed. R. Bank. P. 2004 to investigate
all matters that it, in its sole discretion, deems relevant, including, but not limited to, allegations
of misconduct by Ross H. Auerbach, contained in the Joint Motion of Ashford Textile LLC and
Extreme Horse Limited for the Appointment of an Examiner and Related Relief (the
“Ashford/Extreme Motion”).
36. In accordance with its authority under Fed. R. Bank. P. 2004, the Committee is
authorized to do all of the following:
(a) Issue document requests to the Debtors;
(b) Notice the examination of any director, officer or employee of the Debtors; and
(c) issue subpoenas to non-parties for the production of documents and/or
examinations without further order or notice, except that the Committee shall serve a copy of any
subpoena on the Debtors through counsel;
37. The Debtors, and all of its directors, officers and employees, including Ross H.
Auerbach, are ordered to fully cooperate with the Committee’s investigation and will promptly
respond to requests for information and/or documents without compulsory process.
38. Counsel for the Debtors may attend and participate in any non-party deposition
noticed by the Committee. If a subpoena seeks the production of documents only, the Committee
20-10990-mew Doc 96 Filed 05/22/20 Entered 05/22/20 09:18:28 Main Document Pg 15 of 27
-3- 7241975 v3
shall promptly provide a copy of all documents obtained in response to a subpoena to counsel for
the Debtors.
39. Nothing in the foregoing constitutes a waiver of rights by a third party receiving a
subpoena, including the right to object to a subpoena on any ground available to them.
40. The Committee is hereby granted exclusive standing to bring any cause of action,
and to settle any cause of action, it determines should be commenced based on the findings of the
investigation. The Committee shall give the Debtors no less than ten (10) business days’ written
notice prior to filing any action, stating generally, the name of the defendants, the factual
circumstances giving rise to a claim, and the causes of action plead.
41. The Debtors shall promptly file an application requesting authority to retain and
employ MMG Advisors (“MMG”) to serve as their investment banker.
42. The Debtors, upon consultation with and the consent of the Committee, shall
promptly file a motion or motions, as appropriate, to establish bid procedures, bid protections for
any potential stalking horse, scheduling an auction, and approving the sale, in accordance with and
including the terms set forth in, Section II of the Term Sheet.
43. The Debtors shall revise the proposed order granting its application to retain Clear
Thinking Group as financial advisor [Docket No. 73] to include the following provision:
Consistent with current practice, the Debtors, through their controller or chief financial officer, shall provide a weekly funding request to Clear Thinking Group for review, consultation and approval. Other than disbursements required by an order of the Court, the Debtor may disburse funds only for the purposes set forth in a weekly funding request reviewed and approved by Clear Thinking Group.
44. Any provision in the Term Sheet not specifically approved above is hereby
approved.
45. This Court shall retain exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine any disputes
arising under this Order or the Term Sheet.
20-10990-mew Doc 96 Filed 05/22/20 Entered 05/22/20 09:18:28 Main Document Pg 16 of 27
-4- 7241975 v3
May __, 2020 ______________________________________ Honorable Michael E. Wiles United States Bankruptcy Judge
20-10990-mew Doc 96 Filed 05/22/20 Entered 05/22/20 09:18:28 Main Document Pg 17 of 27
7241975 v3 7241975 v3 7241975 v3
EXHIBIT B (Committee Correspondence)
20-10990-mew Doc 96 Filed 05/22/20 Entered 05/22/20 09:18:28 Main Document Pg 18 of 27
May 15, 2020
VIA EMAIL
S. Jason Teele
Sills Cummis & Gross P.C.
One Riverfront Plaza
Newark, NJ 07102
Tracy L. Klestadt
Klestadt Winters Jureller Southard & Stevens, LLP
200 West 41st Street, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10036
Robert Stark
Brown Rudnick LLP
Seven Times Square
New York, NY 10036
Bernard D. Bollinger, Jr.
Buchalter, A Professional Corporation
1000 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1500
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Re: In re The Northwest Company, LLC, No. 20-10990 (MEW) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.)
Dear Counsel:
As you know, we represent the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of The Northwest
Company, LLC, et al. (the “Committee”). We write in response to the motion filed by Extreme
Horse Limited (“Extreme Horse”) and Ashford Textiles LLC (“Ashford”) on May 12, 2020
requesting the appointment of an examiner and/or trustee (the “Examiner/Trustee Motion”). While
the Committee does not believe that the appointment of either an examiner or trustee is necessary,
we agree that independent oversight of both the company and sales process is appropriate, and that
a comprehensive investigation should be conducted of the alleged self-dealing and
misappropriation of Company assets by Ross Auerbach and other insiders. Our proposal to address
all of these issues follows. In the event we are unable to reach a consensual resolution amongst
all parties, we will respond to the Examiner/Trustee Motion accordingly.
Request for Appointment of an Examiner
The Examiner/Trustee Motion raises valid points regarding the need for an investigation regarding
potential self-dealing and misappropriation of Company assets by Ross Auerbach and other
insiders; however, it wholly ignores the existence of another party already well-situated to conduct
an investigation—the Committee. While the Committee agrees that a thorough investigation into
potential causes of action against Ross Auerbach and other insiders is critical, the appointment of
an examiner is not necessary (nor mandatory) in this case. The issues Ashford and Extreme Horse
seek to have an examiner appointed to investigate are matters that creditors’ committees
customarily investigate and that the Committee will investigate, including the pre-petition
transactions involving Ross Auerbach or payments allegedly made on behalf of the Auerbach
family. As a fiduciary of the Debtors’ estates, the Committee is well-positioned and motivated to
Michael A. Kaplan Counsel
One Lowenstein Drive Roseland, New Jersey 07068 T: 973.597.2302 F: 973.597.2303 E: [email protected]
20-10990-mew Doc 96 Filed 05/22/20 Entered 05/22/20 09:18:28 Main Document Pg 19 of 27
May 15, 2020 Page 2
conduct the requisite independent investigation. Any potential recovery would benefit not only
the Committee’s constituents, but all creditors in this case.
Indeed, the Estate will benefit from having the Committee fulfill this role as it will not only be
more cost effective for the Committee to conduct the investigation, but also save time as the
Committee—which has already served document requests to address the allegations raised—is
best suited to complete the work prior to the execution of any sale.
In our experience, examiners are a significant expense for the Debtors’ estates and are not the most
efficient vehicle for such investigations. At this early stage of the Debtors’ Chapter 11 cases,
appointing an examiner with a broad mandate and budget would substantially interfere with the
ongoing bankruptcy proceedings. Any examiner that is appointed presumably will retain a law
firm and also a financial advisor which, inevitably, will duplicate the efforts of the attorneys and
financial advisor retained by the Committee. Accordingly, it is our position that the Committee,
and not an examiner, should conduct an investigation into the relevant prepetition transactions.
The Committee proposes the following schedule for its investigation, and requests that all parties
consent to this schedule:
Document requests to be sent to the Debtors by May 22, 20201;
Document requests to be sent to Ross Auerbach, Northwest Textile Holdings, LLC, and
any other third parties by May 22, 2020;
Document productions to be substantially completed by June 12, 2020; and
Depositions and/or informal interviews to occur between June 22, 2020 and July 3, 2020.
The Committee will present its findings to all interested parties no later than July 17, 2020
(or earlier if the sales process dictates).
Request for Appointment of a Trustee
Likewise, the appointment of a Chapter 11 Trustee is unnecessary and financially imprudent.
While the Committee agrees that the sale process must be spearheaded by an independent director,
it recognizes there are more suitable and financially viable alternatives than appointing a Trustee.
The Committee, as an independent party and a fiduciary for all unsecured creditors, is well-
equipped to run the sale process. The Committee and its professionals already maintain a firm
grasp on the complexities of this case. Similarly, the Committee is inherently invested in
maximizing the value of the estate through a successful sale process. The appointment and
education of a Trustee would duplicate professionals’ efforts, delay the sale, and diminish the
estate’s resources. The Committee, however, has the requisite knowledge, resources, and
1 We recognize that Ashford and Extreme Horse served discovery demands on various parties on May 13, 2020.
We intend to evaluate those requests and supplement the Committee’s initial set document demands where
appropriate. We are also willing to meet and confer with Ashford and Extreme Horse to discuss the appropriate
scope of discovery.
20-10990-mew Doc 96 Filed 05/22/20 Entered 05/22/20 09:18:28 Main Document Pg 20 of 27
May 15, 2020 Page 3
impartiality to conduct a successful sale with attunement to the best interests of the estate and the
parties in interest.
The Committee therefore proposes the following plan to guide the sale process, and requests that
all parties consent to such plan:
The Committee, in consultation with Extreme Horse and Ashford, will identify an
independent director to be appointed to the Debtor’s board who will have sole authority
over the sale process;
A chief restructuring officer will be named. The Committee submits that the Debtors’
financial advisor, Clear Thinking Group, possesses the qualifications to fill that role;
The Committee’s financial advisor will co-run a full sale process in conjunction with the
Debtor’s banker, assuming one is hired; and
Extreme Horse must waive its argument that its consent is required for the sale to take
place.
Accordingly, the Committee proposes the following to resolve the Examiner/Trustee Motion: (i)
the Committee will conduct a comprehensive investigation of pre-and post-petition conduct to
identify any causes of action that may exist; (ii) the Committee and its professionals, with the
cooperation of Extreme Horse and Ashford, will lead an objective and impartial sale process,
removed from any undue influence by Ross Auerbach and negotiated in the best interests of the
estate.
Please advise us as soon as possible if this proposal is acceptable.
Very truly yours,
/s/ Michael A. Kaplan
Michael A. Kaplan
cc: Jeffrey Cohen
Lowenstein Sandler LLP
1251 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10020
Kenneth Aulet
Brown Rudnick LLP
Seven Times Square
New York, NY 10036
Paul S. Arrow
Buchalter, A Professional Corporation
1000 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1500
Los Angeles, CA 90017
John P. Madden
Emerald Capital Advisors
150 East 52nd Street, 15th Floor
New York, NY 10022
20-10990-mew Doc 96 Filed 05/22/20 Entered 05/22/20 09:18:28 Main Document Pg 21 of 27
7241975 v3 7241975 v3 7241975 v3
EXHIBIT C (Term Sheet)
20-10990-mew Doc 96 Filed 05/22/20 Entered 05/22/20 09:18:28 Main Document Pg 22 of 27
20-10990-mew Doc 96 Filed 05/22/20 Entered 05/22/20 09:18:28 Main Document Pg 23 of 27
20-10990-mew Doc 96 Filed 05/22/20 Entered 05/22/20 09:18:28 Main Document Pg 24 of 27
20-10990-mew Doc 96 Filed 05/22/20 Entered 05/22/20 09:18:28 Main Document Pg 25 of 27
20-10990-mew Doc 96 Filed 05/22/20 Entered 05/22/20 09:18:28 Main Document Pg 26 of 27
Jeffrey CohenCommittee Counsel
5/21/2020
20-10990-mew Doc 96 Filed 05/22/20 Entered 05/22/20 09:18:28 Main Document Pg 27 of 27