“…to be my student, you must develop a taste for victory.”

 Pai Mei, Kill Bill

Judge Drain’s recent bench rulings in Momentive Performance Materials in 2014 generated a great deal of controversy in the distressed debt world.  Distressed investors, lenders, and commentators have questioned whether the Momentive rulings will lead to an industry trend in which debtors seek to cram down their secured lenders to take advantage of the ability to do so at below market interest rates.  

2014 has been a tumultuous year, filled with tragedy and interstellar triumphs: Ebola; Sochi; Ukraine; Flight 370; ISIS; Flight 17; Comet 67P. Life in the corporate bankruptcy and restructuring world was considerably more sedate than in the world at large. Now five and six years removed, some of the mega cases of the 2008 and 2009 era linger on and continue to generate interesting legal developments. 

“Life is not about perfect information. Life is about choices, which is why you have elections.”

We previously covered the Meridian Sunrise Village case on the Bankruptcy Blog here.

On August 26, 2014, Judge Drain concluded the confirmation hearing in Momentive Performance Materials and issued several bench rulings on cramdown interest rates, the availability of a make-whole premium, third party releases, and the extent of the subordination of senior subordinated noteholders.

On August 26, 2014, Judge Drain, of the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, concluded the confirmation hearing in Momentive Performance Materials and issued several bench rulings on cramdown interest rates, the availability of a make-whole premium, third party releases, and the extent of the subordination of senior subordinated noteholders. This four-part Bankruptcy Blog series will examine Judge Drain’s rulings in detail, with Part I of this series providing you with a primer on cramdown in the secured creditor context.

The U.S. Supreme Court in RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank, ___ S. Ct. ___, 2012 WL 1912197 (May 29, 2012), held that a debtor may not confirm a chapter 11 "cramdown" plan that provides for the sale of collateral free and clear of existing liens, but does not permit a secured creditor to credit-bid at the sale. The unanimous ruling written by Justice Scalia (with Justice Kennedy recused) resolved a split among the Third, Fifth, and Seventh Circuits.

On December 12, 2011, the Supreme Court granted a petition for certiorari in a case raising the question of whether a debtor's chapter 11 plan is confirmable when it proposes an auction sale of a secured creditor's assets free and clear of liens without permitting that creditor to "credit bid" its claims but instead provides the creditor with the "indubitable equivalent" of its secured claim. RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank, No. 11-166 (cert. granted Dec. 12, 2011).

Earlier this year, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit decided in In re Lett that objections to a bankruptcy court’s approval of a cram-down chapter 11 plan on the basis of noncompliance with the “absolute priority rule” may be raised for the first time on appeal. The Eleventh Circuit ruled that “[a] bankruptcy court has an independent obligation to ensure that a proposed plan complies with [the] absolute priority rule before ‘cramming’ that plan down upon dissenting creditor classes,” whether or not stakeholders “formally” object on that basis.