Until 2013, no circuit court of appeals had weighed in on the implications of the U.S. Supreme Court’s pronouncement in the 203 North LaSalle case that property retained by a junior stakeholder under a cram-down chapter 11 plan in exchange for new value “without benefit of market valuation” violates the “absolute priority rule.” See Bank of Amer. Nat’l Trust & Savings Ass’n v. 203 North LaSalle Street P’ship, 526 U.S. 434 (1999), reversing Matter of 203 North LaSalle Street P’ship, 126 F.3d 955 (7th Cir. 1997).

2012 is shaping up as a year of bankruptcy first impressions for the Ninth Circuit. The court of appeals sailed into uncharted bankruptcy waters twice already this year in the same chapter 11 case. On January 24, the court ruled in In re Thorpe Insulation Co., 2012 WL 178998 (9th Cir. Jan. 24, 2012) ("Thorpe I"), that an appeal by certain nonsettling asbestos insurers of an order confirming a chapter 11 plan was not equitably moot because, among other things, the plan had not been "substantially consummated" under the court's novel construction of that statutory term.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has issued a case useful for credit bidders that successfully bid on their own collateral at a bankruptcy sale, which goes forward without a specific agreement "carving out" expenses. Borrego Springs Bank N.A. v. Skuna River Lumber L.L.C., (In re Skuna River Lumber, LLC), 564 F.3d 353 (5th Cir. 2009).

In a harshly worded decision, a federal bankruptcy judge concluded that a syndicated loan product was so one-sided in favor of the lender as to "shock the conscience" of the court. The judge therefore equitably subordinated the secured lender's claim. See In re Yellowstone Mountain Club, LLC, No. 08-61570, 2009 WL 1324950 (Bankr. D. Mont. May 12, 2009).

Yellowstone Mountain Club