A long-standing legal principle is that liens pass through bankruptcy unaffected. Like every general rule, however, this tenet has exceptions.

A few weeks ago in In re S. White Transportation, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit permitted a secured creditor that had indisputably received notice of the debtor’s chapter 11 case, but took no steps to protect its interests until after the confirmation of the debtor’s plan, to continue to assert a lien against the debtor’s property post-confirmation. 

The Bottom Line

It should be common knowledge that a secured creditor, having received proper notice in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy case, faces the risk that its lien will be extinguished if it fails to object to a reorganization plan that does not specifically preserve the lien. Apparently, however, not all secured lenders realize this risk, and some fall prey to a trap for the unwary in §1141(c) of the Bankruptcy Code by failing to protect their liens and place their collateral at risk.

I. Introduction

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held on August 5 that a secured lender’s disputed “lien on [the debtor’s] principal asset survived . . . confirmation of [the debtor’s] Chapter 11 . . . reorganization plan” because the lender had not participated in the bankruptcy case.S. White Transportation, Inc. v. Acceptance Loan Co., 2013 WL 3983343, *1,*3 (5th Cir. Aug. 5, 2013). Had the lender participated in the case, the court reasoned, its lien might have been avoided.Id., at *1, citingIn re Ahern Enterprises, Inc., 507 F.3d 817, 822 (5th Cir.

Over the next few years, a significant number of distressed bank-holding companies will face the end of interestdeferral periods and the prospect of payment defaults on certain debt instruments and trust-preferred securities. The looming obligations to repay deferred interest may escalate the need for financial restructuring at these holding companies and may create attractive opportunities for investors to recapitalize or acquire their subsidiary banks, including in a bankruptcy scenario.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit―in Rajala v. Gardner, 709 F.3d 1031 (10th Cir. 2013)―has joined the Second Circuit and departed from the Fifth Circuit by holding that an allegedly fraudulently transferred asset is not property of the estate until recovered pursuant to section 550 of the Bankruptcy Code and therefore is not covered by the automatic stay. According to the court, its decision “gives Congress’s chosen language its ordinary meaning, and abides by a rule against surplusage.”

When the Fifth Circuit, in a case of first impression for that circuit and all of its sister circuit, last year ruled in In re Chilton, 11-40377, 2012 WL 762924 (5th Cir. Mar. 12, 2012) that inherited IRAs constituted retirement funds within the “plain meaning” of §522 of the Bankruptcy Code and were thus exempt from the bankruptcy estate, under § 522(d)(12) (the federal exemptions), many thought the issue was settled.

In April, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals split with the Fifth Circuit – and other lower courts – on an issue at the intersection of bankruptcy and trusts and estate law. InIn re Clark, 714 F.3d 559 (7th Cir. 2013), the court held that funds in an individual retirement account inherited from someone other than the bankrupt debtor’s spouse are not “retirement funds” within the meaning of the United States Bankruptcy Code and are, therefore, available to pay creditors of the debtor-heir.