The Third Circuit recently held that a bankruptcy court may confirm a Chapter 11 plan that includes a sale of assets in which secured creditors are not permitted to “credit bid” for the assets. In re Philadelphia Newspapers, LLC, 599 F.3d 298 (3d Cir. 2010). In that case, the debtors in possession, companies that own and operate the Philadelphia Inquirer and Philadelphia Daily News, moved the bankruptcy court to approve bid procedures for an auction of the debtors’ assets. Id. at 302.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on June 2, 2010, sitting en banc, overruled its own precedential holding in Avellino & Beines v. M. Frenville Co. (Frenville), 744 F.2d 332 (3d Cir. 1984), to hold that in the context of asbestos-related tort claims, a “claim” under the Bankruptcy Code arises when an individual is exposed pre-petition to a product giving rise to an injury rather than when the injury manifests itself. JED-WEN, Inc. v. Van Brunt (In re Grossman’s), No. 1563, slip op. at 18 (3d Cir. June 2, 2010).

• On August 4, 2010, the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part a Wisconsin federal district court’s ruling on the Wisconsin bankruptcy court’s disposition of three of Telephone and Data Systems’ (TDS) claims, and the FCC’s objections thereto, filed in Airadigm’s Chapter 11 reorganization plan. The principal assets at issue were a series of C- and F-block spectrum licenses for mobile phone service in certain areas of Wisconsin, Iowa, and Michigan that Airadigm had won at auction in the late 1990s.

The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently held that Chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code does not prohibit a foreign representative from bringing an avoidance action so long as the claim for relief is based on the substantive laws of the jurisdiction where the foreign proceeding is located. The Fifth Circuit’s decision is consistent with the dual policy considerations of comity and predictability. Fogerty v. Petroquest Res., Inc. (In re Condor Ins. Ltd.), 601 F.3d 319 (5th Cir. 2010).

Background

SCHLEICHER v. WENDT (August 20, 2010)

Conseco was a large financial services company traded on the New York Stock Exchange. It filed for bankruptcy in 2002 and successfully reorganized. This securities-fraud claim was filed against Conseco managers who are alleged to have made false statements prior to the bankruptcy. Then-District Judge Hamilton (S.D. Ind.) certified a class. Defendants appeal.

Good v RMR Investments, Inc, 428 BR 249 (ED Texas, March 31, 2010)

CASE SNAPSHOT

A secured creditor in a chapter 11 case objected to the confirmation of the reorganization plan of the debtor, arguing that the proper “cramdown” interest rate (court-modified rate) was the pre-petition contractual default rate, rather than the significantly lower cramdown rate. After the debtor appealed, the District Court affirmed, holding that utilizing the contract rate of interest was appropriate because the debtor was solvent.

In an October 19, 2010 opinion arising out of the Scotia Pacific bankruptcy cases, the Fifth Circuit ruled that reorganized Scotia and its affiliate Pacific Lumber Company were obliged – nearly 2½ years after Scotia’s reorganization plan was consummated – to pay Scotia’s former secured lenders approximately $30 million on account of a mistake made by the bankruptcy judge in calculating the amount owed to the secured lenders for the use of their collateral during the bankruptcy cases.

In October 2010, several important Eighth Circuit Bankruptcy Court decisions were issued. This article summarizes those decisions.

The National Benevolent Association of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), et. al v. Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP, No. 09-6084, 09-6085 (8th Cir. BAP 10/8/10)

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, on Oct. 19, 2010, corrected a bankruptcy court’s calculation of a secured lender group’s superpriority administrative claim more than two years after consummation of the debtor’s Chapter 11 reorganization plan. In re SCOPAC et al., F.3d__, 2010 WL 4069525, at *2-3, *5-6 (5th Cir. Oct. 19, 2010) (Jones, Ch.J.) [“Pacific Lumber II”]; see alsoIn re Pacific Lumber Co., 584 F.3d 229, 242 (5th Cir. 2009) [“Pacific Lumber I”] (plan “substantially consummated within weeks of confirmation”).

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.