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.
Basic Capital Management, Inc. v. Dynex Commercial, Inc., 2011 WL 12067376 (Tex. Sup. Ct. J. Apr. 1, 2011)
CASE SNAPSHOT
In re Olde Prairie Block Owner, LLC, Bankr. No. 10B22668 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. March 11, 2011)
CASE SNAPSHOT
Summary
In a 56 page opinion published June 9, 2011, Judge Walsh ruled that a method of operating in which all of the credits and debits between two companies were netted out allows this same method to be used in calculating a set-off defense in preference litigation. Judge Walsh’s opinion is available here (the “Opinion”).
Background
On June 28, 2011, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit rejected the views of the Third Circuit and the Fifth Circuit and held that a reorganization plan which proposes the sale of encumbered assets free and clear of liens must honor the secured creditor’s right to credit bid its claim in order to be confirmed under the “fair and equitable” standard of the Bankruptcy Code. In the combined appeals of In re River Road Hotel Partners, LLC, et al. andIn re Radlax Gateway Hotel, LLC, et al.
On June 28, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that secured creditors have a statutory right to credit bid1 their debt at an asset sale conducted under a "cramdown" plan. In re River Road Hotel Partners, LLC, ___ F.3d. ___, 2011 WL 2547615 (7th Cir. June 28, 2011).2 The Seventh Circuit's decision creates a split with recent decisions in the Third and Fifth Circuits regarding a lender's ability to credit bid its secured debt. See In re Philadelphia Newspapers, 599 F.3d 298 (3d Cir. 2010); In re Pacific Lumber, Co., 584 F.3d 229 (5th Cir.
In a major victory for secured creditors, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Tennessee has held that a sale of secured property must afford a secured creditor the right to credit bid for its collateral under section 363(k) of title 11 of the United States Code (Bankruptcy Code), except in extraordinary circumstances upon a showing of “cause.” The court held that even where secured party credit bidding might impact the competitive bidding process – including potentially “chilling” third party bids – this alone does not constitute sufficient cause to deny a credito
The recent Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing by James River Coal was the latest reminder that mining companies continue to face unique and myriad challenges. Several factors, including the depressed global economy, tougher environmental rules and enforcement, funding and liquidity challenges, and market volatility, are causing industry-wide stress, particularly for coal companies. Trade press and pundits suggest that more mining company bankruptcies may be on the horizon.
It has not taken long for another bankruptcy court to question the propriety of allowing secured creditors to credit bid their loans. You may recall that in the case of Fisker Automotive Holdings, Inc., et al. a Delaware bankruptcy court limited a creditor’s ability to credit bid based on self-serving testimony from a competing bidder that it would not participate in an auction absent the court capping the secured creditor’s credit bid.
Chances are if you are a provider of goods or services and do business pursuant to some form of a short-term or long-term credit arrangement that you have received correspondence from a bankruptcy Trustee or a Chapter 11 debtor demanding money on the basis of an alleged “preference.” Perhaps some of you have even been served with a formal complaint demanding the same. If so, then this article is meant to take some of the mystery out of preferences and to offer some advice as to what to do when you receive such a correspondence.
WHAT IS A PREFERENCE?