Home | Media News | Tribune creditors sue the buyout banks

Tribune creditors sue the buyout banks

Font size: Decrease font Enlarge font
image

A group of creditors whose junior claims pre-date Tribune Company’s 2007 leveraged buyout (LBO)  have sued the senior lenders who funded the LBO. The suit claims the LBO doomed Tribune to insolvency – and the big banks knew it.

A good bit of the complaint was filed under seal with the US Bankrupty Court in Delaware, the same court which is overseeing Tribune’s Chapter 11 case. The public filing is heavily redacted, with large black areas deleting confidential claims that the banks were aware of Tribune’s financial instability when they made $8 billion in loans for the buyout.

The lawsuit was filed by Wilmington Trust Co., acting as agent for the pre-LBO bondholders, who are owed $1.2 billion. The defendants are JP Morgan Chase, Merrill Lynch, Citicorp, Bank of America, Barclays, Morgan Stanley and some subsidiaries of those firms.

“Prior to the LBO, at any reasonable enterprise value, Tribune was more than able to support its existing senior bank debt of $2.8 billion, senior unsecured notes of $1.3 billion and the PHONES [the junior debt] of $1.2 billion. Of Tribune’s total pre-existing debt just prior to the LBO, $4.1 billion was senior in priority to the PHONES,” the suit stated. But the LBO nearly tripled that debt load to $13 billion and placed a total of $11.3 billion ahead of the PHONES in debt ranking.

That ranking is key. If the holders of the $1.2 billion in junior debt, the PHONES, can prove that the lenders knew the LBO would render Tribune insolvent, the court could move the junior creditors up in line for recovery.

The obvious question is, why would the banks fund a deal they knew wouldn’t work? The lawsuit claims it was for some $200 million in fees related to the LBO.

Have an opinion on this article? Post your comment below.

Bookmark and Share

Today's Broadcasting News

RBR - Radio News
TVBR - TV/Cable News




Subscribe to comments feed Comments (2 posted):

Ware Adams on 06 March, 2010 11:07:43
avatar
As a Chicagoan, and lifetime Democrat, reading of the travails and "skulduggery" of the Tribune pleases. "It could not have happened to a 'nicer' guy"!
But my inquiry has always been a legal one about ERISA and the use, or grab, of employee pension and/or profit sharing funds to grease this sleazy transaction. Namely, ERISA funds must be used "for the exclusive benefit of the beneficiaries" and the use of them to grease the buy-out deal has always raised my question, and doubts. Were those ERISA controlled funds properly applied? Do these beneficiaries have a cause of action?
In the meantime the Tribune continues as not a "news"paper, but a feature tabloid and highly partisan for anything republican.
Why not put the whole historical disgrace of this thing in a Chapter 7 and give it a decent burial?
Thumbs Up Thumbs Down
0
Brett Miller on 08 March, 2010 09:50:11
avatar
Whether the Trib is left or right is immaterial. Clearly somebody did not do right by the junior creditors when they agreed to be subordinated. Any refinancing of this nature should have triggered language that (similar to a "due on sale" clause) would have paid off the PHONES.
Thumbs Up Thumbs Down
0

Post your comment comment

Please enter the code you see in the image:

  • email Email to a friend
  • print Print version
Log in


RBR-TVBR readers rejected PRA negotiations two weeks ago. 8/23 NAB explained the proposal and wants the industry’s opinion, so we’ve simplified the answers and we're putting it before you again:
Submit your own poll Email production@rbr.com
www.harkerresearch.com




Facebook

Twitter

Rate this article
0