On October 5, 2010, Judge Bruce Black of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the “Bankruptcy Court”) issued a ruling in the River Road Hotel Partner LLC, et. al. (the “Debtors”) bankruptcy cases denying the Debtors’ bid procedures motion incident to plan confirmation. The bid procedures motion, among other things, sought the denial of secured creditor’s right to credit bid.

On August 4, 2010, the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division extended equitable principles previously applied in mortgage foreclosure cases to how far an unsecured judgment creditor could go to satisfy its lien against a debtor, deciding to follow a line of cases standing for the principal that “even in the absence of express statutory authorization, a court has inherent equitable authority to allow a fair market value credit in order to prevent a double recovery by a creditor against a debtor.” Moreover, in the case, MMU of New York, Inc. v.

Bankruptcy lawyers who are regularly involved in distressed m&a deals have been wondering for the past few months about the potential fallout from Philadelphia Newspapers.

In difficult economic times, debtors’ attorneys closely review credit reports looking for potential legal claims against creditors. Long after a debtor has been discharged from bankruptcy, creditors can find themselves defending claims of improper credit reporting. A recent case from the Eastern District of North Carolina illustrates the trouble facing creditors who furnish incorrect reports of discharged debt. See In re Adams (Bankr. E.D.N.C. 2010).

On November 10th, the International Swaps and Derivatives Association announced that its Americas Credit Derivatives Determinations Committee resolved that a bankruptcy credit event has occurred in respect of Ambac Financial Group, Inc. An auction will be held for Ambac Financial Group for which ISDA will publish the auction terms. ISDA Press Release.  

Introduction: Earlier this year, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals' decision in In re Philadelphia Newspapers, LLC[1] sent shockwaves through the secured lending community. In a 2-1 decision, the court held that a debtor can confirm a plan of reorganization while denying the secured creditor the opportunity to credit bid for its collateral if the plan provides the lender with the "indubitable equivalent" of its claim.

Manufacturers, distributors and other merchants of goods who sell their products on credit terms routinely accept a high level of risk of defaulted payment from their customers. In good times, credit-related losses are relatively predictable as a percentage of sales and can be offset by variations in pricing and volume across a seller’s sales transactions. Unfortunately, we are far removed from the good times. The prolonged economic slump has resulted in increased payment defaults and a 150 percent rise in business bankruptcies since the summer of 2007.

In the well-publicized opinion of In re Philadelphia Newspapers, LLC et al., 599 F. 3d 298 (3rd Cir. 2010), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, agreeing with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit,1 held that Section 1129(b)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code (the Code)2 is unambiguous and is to be read in the disjunctive, thus allowing a proponent of a Chapter 11 plan of reorganization to use the "cram down" power under subsection (iii) of that Section without allowing a secured creditor to credit bid on a sale proposed as part of the plan.

Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors v Credit Suisse (In re Champion Enterprises, Inc.), 2010 WL 3522132 (Bankr. D. Del. 2010)

CASE SNAPSHOT

In re River Road Hotel Partners, LLC, et al., Case No. 09-B-30029 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2010)

CASE SNAPSHOT