© 2011 Bloomberg Finance L.P. All rights reserved. Originally published by Bloomberg Finance L.P. in the Vol. 4, No. 6 edition of the Bloomberg Law Reports—Asia Pacific Law. Reprinted with permission. Bloomberg Law Reports® is a registered trademark and service mark of Bloomberg Finance L.P.
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.
The court has held that a statutory demand is valid despite the high default interest rate on an underlying loan.
For debtors with limited liabilities, little surplus income and minimal gross assets, the new Debt Relief Order (DRO) is a further tool to consider in managing their debts. DROs, which came into force on 6 April 2009, are aimed at those who find they are unable to pay off their debts within a reasonable time but for whom other forms of debt relief, such as bankruptcy or Individual Voluntary Arrangements, are unavailable, or perhaps unaffordable.
What are the criteria for a DRO?
A DRO can be applied for where the debtor:
After a lengthy consultation period, the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (PAPDC) has now been finalised and will come into force on 1 October 2017. This protocol will apply to lenders who are seeking payment of a debt from an individual/ sole trader, as a debtor or guarantor. Now is the time to update your systems and procedures to accommodate the new protocol requirements.
What is required?
A lender’s (“Lender”) derivative breach of fiduciary duty claims on behalf of Chapter 7 guarantor-Debtors cannot be time-barred because of Lender’s knowledge of the “[d]efendants’ conduct,” held the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware on June 22, 2016. In re AMC Investors, LLC, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80861, *16 (Del. June 22, 2016).
The United States Supreme Court unanimously[1] held that secured creditors have a statutory right to credit bid their debt at an asset sale conducted under a so-called "cramdown" plan. RadLAX Gateway Hotels, LLC et al., v. Amalgamated Bank (In re River Road Hotel Partners, LLC),__S.Ct.__ No. 11-166, 2012 WL 1912197 (U.S. May 29, 2012).
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.
On Nov. 10, 2009, a Pennsylvania district court held that secured creditors do not have an absolute right to credit bid1 their debt under the Bankruptcy Code (the “Code”) in an asset sale conducted pursuant to a “cramdown” plan of reorganization that proposes to provide the secured creditors with the “indubitable equivalent” of their claims. In re Philadelphia Newspapers, LLC, Civil Action 09-00178 at 57 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 10, 2009). This decision is on appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.
Facts