The secured lender industry experienced a collective sigh of relief on May 29 after the Supreme Court ruled in RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC, et al. v. Amalgamated Bank that credit bidding remains a viable option to protect collateral in a cramdown bankruptcy plan. Expressly inscribed in Sections 363(k) and 1129(b)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code, credit bidding has long been understood as a fairly uncontroversial right; until recently.

The chapter 11 case of mortgage lender and servicer Residential Capital, LLC (“ResCap”) is fascinating on a number of levels. Its parent company, Ally Financial, Inc.

On June 22nd, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ("FDIC") and the Treasury Department issued a final rule on the calculation of the maximum obligation limitation ("MOL"), as specified in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the "Dodd-Frank Act"). The MOL limits the aggregate amount of outstanding obligations that the FDIC may issue or incur in connection with the orderly liquidation of a covered financial company. The new rule is effective July 23, 2012.

Borrowers who file a bankruptcy petition are always looking for creative new challenges to claims asserted by their bank creditors.  In recent years, debtors have argued that a bank’s issuance of an Internal Revenue Code form 1099-C “Cancellation of Debt” has the effect of waiving the bank’s claims against the borrower, and should preclude the bank from having an allowed claim in the bankruptcy case.  Fortunately, some recent court opinions state that a bank’s issuance of a 1099-C does not constitute a waiver, and the bank remains entitled to enforce its claim in a subsequent bank

The Issue

The issue is whether the insolvency of a borrower under a non-recourse loan can trigger recourse liability for itself and its “bad boy,” non-recourse carve-out guarantors.

The Issue  

The issue is whether the insolvency of a borrower under a non-recourse loan can trigger recourse liability for itself and its “bad boy,” non-recourse carve-out guarantors.  

In Radlax Gateway Hotel, LLC v.

On May 29, 2012 the United States Supreme Court ruled that a plan of reorganization may not be confirmed over the objection of a secured creditor if the plan provides for the sale of collateral free and clear of the creditor’s lien, but does not permit the creditor to credit bid at the sale. The ruling resolved a conflict between a decision from Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which denied confirmation of such a plan, and decisions from the Third and Fifth Circuit Courts of Appeal, which approved such plans.

The United States Supreme Court emphatically upheld a secured creditor’s right to credit bid in bankruptcy cases. In RadLAX Gateway Hotel, et al. v. Amalgamated Bank, 566 U.S.___ (May 29, 2012), the Court found the case an "easy" one to resolve: when a secured creditor is denied the right to credit bid its debt in the sale of its collateral as a part of a bankruptcy plan, it will not receive the "indubitable equivalent" of its secured claim in the form of cash generated from the sale. The Court's unanimous decision should help restore certainty in lending.

The Court’s unanimous decision in RadLAX Gateway Hotel LLC v. Amalgamated Banksettles dispute over the credit-bid right, retaining this important creditor protection.