The recent equitable subordination cases of In re Kreisler and Erenberg, 546 F.3d 863 (7th Cir. 2008) and Credit Suisse v. Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (In re Yellowstone Mountain Club, LLC), Bankr. D. Mont., No. 09-00014 show a possible deviation in the courts regarding the proper application of the doctrine of equitable subordination. Accordingly, secured lenders should stay abreast of these different interpretations and possibly consider adjusting their lending practices.
A recent decision by the US District Court for the Southern District of New York regarding the terms of an engagement letter demonstrates the need to clearly articulate the intended purpose and scope of an engagement. As the case described below demonstrates, if there is any ambiguity with regard to whether or not a fee must be paid and/or when an engagement is terminated, the resolution of such ambiguity may depend upon the description of the engagement’s purpose.
Although courts are generally reluctant to equitably subordinate claims of non-insiders, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Montana recently did just that to the claims of a non-insider lender based on overreaching and self-serving conduct in Credit Suisse v. Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (In Re Yellowstone Mt. Club, LLC), Case No. 08-61570-11, Adv. No. 09-00014 (Bankr. D. Mont. May 13, 2009).
The Ruling
The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware recently dismissed equitable subordination and fraudulent transfer claims filed by the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Champion Enterprises, Inc.
The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware recently dismissed equitable subordination and fraudulent transfer claims filed by the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Champion Enterprises, Inc. ("Champion") against more than 100 prepetition lenders to Champion (collectively, the "Defendants")1.
A recent decision by the US District Court for the Southern District of New York regarding the terms of an engagement letter demonstrates the need to clearly articulate the intended purpose and scope of an engagement. As the case described below demonstrates, if there is any ambiguity with regard to whether or not a fee must be paid and/or when an engagement is terminated, the resolution of such ambiguity may depend upon the description of the engagement’s purpose.
On April 12th, a federal district court addressed the in pari delicto defense, including the sole actor exception to the adverse interest exception. In the instant case, a litigation trust created in bankruptcy court to pursue the debtor's claims sued Credit Suisse for allegedly assisting the debtor's founders' looting of the debtor's subsidiaries. Credit Suisse sought summary judgment, asserting the in pari delicto defense. The Court agreed, finding that the evidence supported the conclusion that the founders so dominated the subsidiaries that the subsidiaries lacked a separate existence.