In an important decision for lenders, the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals recently decided In re SW Boston Hotel Venture LLC, holding that a bankruptcy court was right to give a lender a claim for post-petition interest beginning on the date of the sale of its collateral rather than the commencement date of the debtor’s bankruptcy case.

On April 11, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit rendered an important decision regarding the long-running bankruptcy case of SW Boston Hotel Venture LLC (“SW”), the developer of the W Boston Hotel. This Advisory focuses on two key rulings made by the First Circuit: (i) when an oversecured creditor’s claim for post-petition interest in a debtor’s chapter 11 case begins to accrue and (ii) how such post-petition interest should be calculated in the instances where it is due.

Debt exchanges have long been utilized by distressed companies to address liquidity concerns and to take advantage of beneficial market conditions. A company saddled with burdensome debt obligations, for example, may seek to exchange existing notes for new notes with the same outstanding principal but with borrower-favorable terms, like delayed payment or extended maturation dates (a "Face Value Exchange"). Or the company might seek to exchange existing notes for new notes with a lower face amount, motivated by discounted trading values for the existing notes (a "Fair Value Exchange").

A recent bankruptcy court decision denying a royalty owner's motion for summary judgment is highly relevant to any investor that currently owns a term royalty interest or is considering such an investment. The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas found in NGP Capital Resources Co. v. ATP Oil & Gas Corp. (In re ATP Oil & Gas Corp.), No. 12-3443, 2014 Bankr. LEXIS 33 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Jan.

Many bank holding companies (BHCs) are beginning to face tough choices as the five-year interest deferral period on their trust preferred securities (TruPS) is coming to an end. Consider the following: on Feb. 10, 2014, First Mariner Bancorp, immediately following the end of its five-year interest deferral period on $52 million of TruPS, filed a voluntary Chapter 11 petition and announced its plans to sell its wholly owned subsidiary, 1st Mariner Bank, in a court-supervised Section 363 sale.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held on Jan. 27, 2014 that a lender’s acceleration due to a borrower’s payment default did not trigger a prepayment premium. In re Denver Merchandise Mart, Inc., 2014 WL 291920, *1 (5th Cir. Jan. 27, 2014) (“Denver Merchandise”). Affirming the lower courts’ application of state law, the court held that “the plain language of the contract does not require the payment of the Prepayment Consideration in the event of mere acceleration.” Id. at *5.  

Relevance

In Van Sickle, the plaintiffs each owned a royalty interest in a well that was originally leased by Comanche Oil Company, which later assigned its interests to Athens/Alpha Gas Corporation. Alpha later filed for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the bankruptcy code, and the plan was approved without inclusion of the Van Sickles' claims. The Van Sickles sought to hold both companies liable under the doctrine of successor liability for pre-bankruptcy-court-confirmation royalties under the N.D.C.C. § 47-16-39.1, which provides in part:

In an opinion with serious implications for the treatment of overriding royalty interests ("ORRIs"), a Southern District of Texas Bankruptcy Court ruled that under Louisiana law, an ORRI could be recharacterized as debt rather than a royalty interest, even if the conveyance was facially consistent with an ORRI. An ORRI that is treated as debt would likely have a much lower priority for payment in bankruptcy than an ORRI treated as a royalty interest.

On October 7, 2013, the United States Supreme Court refused to review a Seventh Circuit decision¹ in the Castleton Plaza, LP case, which held that a new value plan proposed by the debtor in which an equity-holder’s spouse would provide a cash infusion to the debtor in exchange for 100 percent of the reorganiz

The Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York overseeing the Residential Capital (“ResCap”) cases issued an opinion on November 15, 2013 (the “Opinion”)2 allowing the unamortized interest associated with original issue discount (“OID”) that was generated in a fair market value exchange and claimed by ResCap’s junior secured noteholders (the “Holders”). While the OID ruling is only one component of the Opinion,3 it may have far reaching implications, as already evidenced in the pricing of other OID notes that were the product of fair market value exchanges.