Bankruptcy Rule changes, effective December 1, 2011, require mortgage holders and servicers to include additional documentation supporting proofs of claim filed in individual debtor cases. Mortgage holders and servicers must follow these rules or face sanctions and potential loss of the right to present the omitted documentation as evidence in subsequent proceedings.
In its recent decision in Meruelo Maddux Properties, Inc.,1 the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that an entity that meets the definition of a “single real estate” debtor under the Bankruptcy Code may not escape the consequences of such designation simply because it is a subsidiary of a group of companies with integrated and intertwined relationships among them. The decision may provide powerful rights not only to lenders to such entities in general, but could significantly enhance the rights of creditors of real estate owning single purpose entities.
In the recent matter Wilmington Trust Natl. Assn. v. Vitro Automotriz, Index No. 652303/11 (N.Y. Sup. Dec. 5, 2011), Justice Bernard J. Fried of the Commercial Division addressed the obligations of guarantors of indentured notes. Regardless that the issuer of the notes had declared bankruptcy in Mexico, the guarantors, none of whom were co-debtors, were not relieved of their obligations under the notes.
Many experienced business people are now familiar with the process by which their valid and successful debt collection efforts result in liability under the preference provisions of the Bankruptcy Code.
The Issue
The issue is whether a Chapter 11 plan can be crammed down over the secured lender’s objection where the plan provides for the sale or transfer of the secured lender’s collateral with the proceeds going to the secured lender without the secured lender having the right to credit bid for is collateral up to the full amount of its claim.
On January 19, 2012, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion in In re River East Plaza, LLC , 2012 WL 169760 (7th Cir. January 19, 2012), affirming an order by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granting an undersecured creditor's motion to lift the automatic stay and dismissing the debtor's single asset real case. The debtor attempted to defeat the mortgagee's motion to lift the automatic stay by proposing a "cramdown" Chapter 11 plan of reorganization.
The Delaware Bankruptcy Court has confirmed that in multiple-debtor chapter 11 cases, the cramdown rules set forth in section 1129(a)(10) of the Bankruptcy Code must be applied on a per debtor basis as opposed to a per plan basis. See In re JER/Jameson Mezz Borrower II, LLC, No. 11-13338 (MFW), 2011 WL 6749058 (Bankr. D. Del. Dec. 22, 2011) (“Jameson”) and In re Tribune Co., No. 08-13141 (KJC), 2011 WL 5142420 (Bankr. D. Del. Oct. 31, 2011) (“Tribune”).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed a bankruptcy court’s dismissal of a single asset real estate case on Jan. 19, 2012, reasoning that the debtor’s proposed substitute collateral “was not the indubitable equivalent of the [undersecured lender’s] mortgage.”In re River East Plaza, LLC, 2012 WL 169760, *2 (7th Cir. Jan. 19, 2012) (Posner, J.). In the court’s words, the debtor “wanted [the lender] out of there and decided to seek confirmation of a [reorganization] plan . . .
On December 22, 2011, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware inIn re JER/Jameson Mezz Borrower II LLC 1 dismissed with prejudice a mezzanine borrower’s bankruptcy case for bad faith under Section 1112(b) of the Bankruptcy Code. In doing so, the court clarified that the standard in the Third Circuit to evaluate the good faith of a debtor seeking shelter under the umbrella of Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code is an objective one and does not consider the subjective good faith of a debtor as do courts within the Secon d Circuit.
The Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held recently that § 550 of the Bankruptcy Code does not limit the potential recovery on fraudulent transfer claims to the amount of unpaid creditor claims against a debtor’s estate. According to the Court, the language in § 550(a) that states that a plaintiff in an avoidance action can recover the property transferred or the value of the property “for the benefit of the estate” provides a “floor” rather than a “ceiling” on recovery.