The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently issued an important decision on the valuation of collateral of secured creditors and “lien-stripping” in Chapter 11 cases. In In re Heritage Highgate, Inc.,1 the court held that in a Chapter 11 case, the value of a secured creditor’s collateral under §506(a) of the Bankruptcy Code2 was the fair market value of the property as established by expert testimony and it was permissible to “strip the lien” of the creditor where it was unsupported by collateral value.
In re Mississippi Valley Livestock, Inc., 745 F.3d 299 (7th Cir. 2014) –
A debtor sold cattle for the account of a cattle producer and then remitted the proceeds to the producer. A chapter 7 trustee sought to recover the payments as preferential transfers. The trustee lost in both the bankruptcy and district courts, and then appealed to the 7th Circuit.
Secured transactions typically include two key documents, which are often executed simultaneously: a promissory note memorializing loan and repayment terms executed by the borrower in favor of the lender and a security agreement granting the lender an interest in collateral securing the borrower’s debt owed to the bank. If a borrower ends up filing for bankruptcy, the bank likely will seek to enforce the security agreement against the borrower and recover the collateral. However, as made clear by the U.S.
In re Demers, 511 B.R. 233 (Bankr. D. R.I. 2014) –
A chapter 13 debtor objected to the portion of a mortgagee’s claim consisting of expenses related to foreclosure of its mortgage. She argued that since the mortgagee failed to comply with notice requirements under the mortgage, the foreclosure expenses were not valid.
In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that debtors may not obtain confirmation of a Chapter 11 cramdown plan that provides for the sale of collateral free and clear of a creditor’s lien but does not permit the creditor to credit-bid at the sale. InRadlax Gateway Hotel, LLC et al. v.
A New York bankruptcy court recently allowed a pro se debtor to discharge over $200,000 in student loan debt, vehemently rejecting as “punitive” more recent legal authority concerning how student loan debts may be discharged in bankruptcy.
While section 503(b)(9) claims deserve priority payment over general unsecured claims, they do not provide a basis for stripping a debtor’s defenses in determining the allowed amount of a section 503(b)(9) claim.
Note: Pepper Hamilton LLP serves as co-counsel to the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (the Committee) in the ADI case. The views expressed herein are solely those of the authors and not of the Committee.