D’Amico, et al. v. Tweeter Opco, LLC and Schultze Asset Management, LLC (In re Tweeter Opco, LLC), 453 B.R. 534 (Bankr. D. Del. 2011)

CASE SNAPSHOT

This article was first published in The Bankruptcy Strategist

Summary

Inre Zais Investment Grade Limited VII, 455 B.R. 839 (2011)

CASE SNAPSHOT

In re Nance Properties, Inc., Case No. 11-06197- 8-JRL (Bankr. E.D.N.C. Nov. 8, 2011)

CASE SNAPSHOT

Spicer v. Konjoyan (In re Renaissance Hospital, et al.), Adv. No. 10-04190-DML (Bankr. N.D. Texas, Nov. 1, 2011)

CASE SNAPSHOT

On June 28, 2011, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals decided In re River Road Hotel Partners, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank, 651 F. 3d 642 (7th Cir. 2011). The Court addressed Section 1129 (b)(2)(A) of the United States Bankruptcy Code in connection with a Plan of Reorganization to sell substantially all of the Debtor's assets. The Court held that the indubitable equivalent prong, (i.e., the "cram down" provisions of section 1129(b)(2)(A)(iii)) could not be used to preclude a secured creditor from credit bidding its claim under sections 363(k) and 1129(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Code.

In a recent Michigan Court of Appeals case, Wells Fargo Bank N.A. vs. Cherryland Mall Limited Partnership et al., (2011 WL 6795393), the court found that the borrower’s violation of a solvency covenant triggered the conversion of the borrower’s and guarantor’s non-recourse obligations to full- recourse obligations. In light of the decision, when negotiating a non-recourse loan, parties would be well advised to pay close attention to the recourse covenants and to be very clear about which covenants, if breached, would trigger full recourse.

Background

On December 12, 2011, the Supreme Court granted a petition for certiorari in a case raising the question of whether a debtor's chapter 11 plan is confirmable when it proposes an auction sale of a secured creditor's assets free and clear of liens without permitting that creditor to "credit bid" its claims but instead provides the creditor with the "indubitable equivalent" of its secured claim. RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank, No. 11-166 (cert. granted Dec. 12, 2011).

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of Illinois held that a debtor's explanation of estate planning as a rationale for asset transfers made prior to bankruptcy is sufficient to survive the Bankruptcy Trustee's motion for summary judgment. However, the Court noted that a deeper factual analysis would be required and expressed skepticism for the debtor's estate planning rationale.