Although 2011 saw major decisions concerning many facets of bankruptcy law, perhaps no area of bankruptcy law drew as many high-profile decisions as the standards for confirming a chapter 11 plan of reorganization. We draw your attention to three particularly important 2011 decisions that are likely to heavily influence the contours of many future chapter 11 plans.

Designating Votes Not Cast in Good Faith

Chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code was enacted in 2005 to create a procedure to recognize an insolvency or debt adjustment proceeding in another country and to, in essence, domesticate that proceeding in the United States. Once a foreign proceeding is “recognized,” a step which cannot be achieved without a foreign representative satisfying various requirements, the foreign representative may obtain certain protections from a United Stated bankruptcy court, including the imposition of the automatic stay to protect the foreign debtor’s property in the United States.

2011 did not begin with a bang for bankruptcy professionals. Commercial bankruptcy case filings were infrequent and so too were the release (or publication) of major bankruptcy court decisions. The second half of the year was a different story.  

Click here to view table

About two years ago, decisions were issued by different circuit court of appeals that addressed the fundamental issue of whether a plan proponent can deny a secured creditor the right to credit bid on collateral of the secured creditor when the sale is made pursuant to a plan of reorganization. Both circuit courts, including the Third Circuit in the much heralded Philadelphia Newspapers LLC decision, found that a debtor could deny a secured creditor that opportunity. See In re Philadelphia Newspapers, 599 F.3d 298 (3rd Cir.

News reports in 2011 suggested that municipal bankruptcy filings were frequent and substantial. Each of Central Falls, Rhode Island, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, and Jefferson County, Alabama filed for bankruptcy protection in the second half of 2011. Even a state-owned local monopoly on (legal) gambling was not safe from financial turmoil in 2011: Suffolk County’s Off-Track Betting Corporation filed for bankruptcy on March 18. Indeed, 2011 seemed to be the year of chapter 9, which governs municipal bankruptcy filings.

Active participants in the derivatives market rely on the Bankruptcy Code safe harbor set forth in section 546(e) in pricing their securities. That provision restricts a debtor’s power to recover payments made in connection with certain securities transactions that might otherwise be avoidable under the Bankruptcy Code. Two high profile cases decided in 2011 addressed challenges to the application of section 546(e). The more widely reported decision (at least outside the bankruptcy arena) was in connection with the Madoff insolvency case. See Picard v.

In a September 7, 2010 article, the Wall Street Journal reported an uptick in bankruptcy claim activity by traders and the desire of the traders to not comply with certain bankruptcy disclosure requirements that applied to “committees.” The Journal highlighted one case where Bankruptcy Judge Brendan Shannon of the Delaware District Court held the following exchange with a lawyer for certain bondholders: “‘Are you a Committee?’ The lawyer began to answer, ‘Well, actually Your Honor, we are a group of - -’.

It is not uncommon for firms to use standard language in their account agreements that creates liens on Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs). Two recent federal court decisions, however, suggest that granting such a lien on an IRA may constitute a prohibited transaction that causes these accounts to lose their tax exempt status, which in turn could potentially make IRAs subject to third-party creditor claims. These two decisions could have far-reaching implications for any firm that has used or still uses similar lien-creating language in their account agreements.

Taking the lead from its recent decision in In re River Road Hotel Partners,¹ in In re River East Plaza, LLC,² the Seventh Circuit held that a debtor cannot avoid the lien retention prong of Section 1129(b)(2)(A)(i)³ by transferring an undersecured creditor’s lien to substitute collateral as indubitable equivalence pursuant to Section 1129(b)(2)(A)(iii).