Skip to main content

§ 503(c)

In re Am. Eagle Energy Corp.

Ruling
Debtor’s incentive bonus plan authorized and approved.
Issue(s)
Were “bonus payments” part of a retention plan or part of a key employee incentive plan?

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Am. Eagle Energy Corp. Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Commercial opinion summary, case decided on June 23, 2016 , LexisNexis #0716-067

In re Alpha Natural Res. Inc.

Ruling
Key employee incentive plan could be approved.
Issue(s)
Should an order issue approving the debtors' key employee incentive plan?

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Alpha Natural Res. Inc. Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Commercial opinion summary, case decided on February 24, 2016 , LexisNexis #0316-081

In re GT Advanced Techs. Inc.

Ruling
"Incentive plan" that was really a disguised retention plan for insiders could not be approved.
Issue(s)
Could debtor's "key employee retention plan" be approved?

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re GT Advanced Techs. Inc. Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Commercial opinion summary, case decided on September 30, 2015 , LexisNexis #1015-115

In re Patriot Coal Corp.

Ruling
Debtor granted authority to implement annual incentive plan and critical employee retention plan.
Procedural posture

Debtors filed voluntary petitions for relief under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. The debtors filed a motion for authority to implement compensation plans, seeking the court's approval of its proposed compensation plans which contained an annual incentive plan (AIP) and a critical employee retention plan (CERP).

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Patriot Coal Corp. Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Commercial opinion summary, case decided on May 16, 2013 , LexisNexis #0613-083

In re AMR Corp.

Ruling
Merger of debtor with another airline approved except as to proposed severance payment to debtor's CEO.
Procedural posture

Debtors filed a motion under 11 U.S.C.S. §§ 363, 503(b), and 105(a) for approval of an agreement to merge the debtors (debtor airline) with another airline. The U.S. Trustee (UST) objected to the motion.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re AMR Corp. Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Commercial opinion summary, case decided on April 11, 2013 , LexisNexis #0513-079

In re LCI Holding Co.

Ruling
Payments by chapter 11 debtor to eligible employees pursuant to bonus plans authorized.
Procedural posture

Chapter 11 debtors filed a motion for authorization, inter alia, to pay bonuses offered in two plans to certain eligible employees.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re LCI Holding Co. Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Commercial opinion summary, case decided on March 15, 2013 , LexisNexis #0413-079

In re Residential Capital LLC

Ruling
Debtor's motion for authorization to implement key employee incentive plan denied absent relationship to business goals.
Procedural posture

The chapter 11 debtor and its affiliated debtors (the debtors) filed a motion for authorization to implement a key employee incentive plan (KEIP) for certain key insiders of the debtors. The United States Trustee (UST) opposed the motion, arguing that 11 U.S.C.S. § 503(c)(1) applied to the KEIP because it was primarily retentive, and that the KEIP should not be approved because it did not meet the requirements of that section.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Residential Capital LLC Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Commercial opinion summary, case decided on August 28, 2012 , LexisNexis #0912-075

In re Hawker Beechcraft Inc.

Ruling
Approval of key employee incentive plan denied due to failure of insiders to meet BAPCPA standards.
Procedural posture

Debtors filed a motion seeking approval of their proposed key employee incentive plan (the "KEIP") and their non-insider key employee retention plan (the "KERP"). Following an evidentiary hearing, the court approved the KERP from the bench, and reserved decision on the KEIP.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Hawker Beechcraft Inc. Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Commercial opinion summary, case decided on August 24, 2012 , LexisNexis #0912-117

In re Blitz U.S.A. Inc.

Ruling
Bonus plan proposed by debtor in possession in good faith and in ordinary course of business, based on sound business judgment, approved.
Procedural posture

Debtors, a corporation and affiliated businesses, declared chapter 11 bankruptcy and operated their businesses as debtors-in-possession, pursuant to 11 U.S.C.S. §§ 1107(a) and 1108. The corporation filed a motion seeking permission to pay employees a bonus for Fiscal Year 2012. A committee of unsecured creditors and the United States Trustee ("UST") filed objections. The court held a hearing on corporation's motion.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Blitz U.S.A. Inc. Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Commercial opinion summary, case decided on July 09, 2012 , LexisNexis #0912-042

In re Velo Holdings Inc.

Ruling
Key employee incentive plan approved as valid exercise of debtors' business judgment.
Procedural posture

Chapter 11 debtors moved for approval of a key employee incentive plan (KEIP), that would set aside $2.875 million in incentive-bonus payments for 63 of the debtors' employees, including 5 insiders, who were directors and officers, payable if the debtors' businesses reach certain financial goals. The United States Trustee filed an objection to the motion, claiming the KEIP was not primarily incentive-based.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Velo Holdings Inc. Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Commercial opinion summary, case decided on June 06, 2012 , LexisNexis #0612-112