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.
The chapter 11 case of DBSD North America, Inc. (“DBSD”), f/k/a ICO North America, has been marked by aggressive tactics and extreme positions from its commencement. DBSD, a non-operating satellite communications company, and its second lien noteholders made clear their intent to cram down a plan of reorganization (the “Plan”) on DBSD’s first lien lenders.
For many hotel owners, it is an all-too-familiar story: occupancy is down, and even though operating expenses have been cut to the bone, there is just not enough money to go around. It seems there is always another bill: franchise fees, payroll, real property taxes, debt service—the list goes on. The unfortunate result is that either because of a failure to make a payment or a breach of some other covenant, the owner finds itself looking at a default notice from its lender. When dealing with a loan default, there are four things the hotel owner needs to understand.
The Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York recently considered the enforceability of claims for "make-whole" amounts and damages for breach of a "no-call" provision. In re Chemtura Corp., No. 09-11233 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Oct. 21, 2010) ("Chemtura"). These provisions are generally enforceable outside of bankruptcy, but enforceability in the context of a bankruptcy case is still unclear. In Chemtura, the court did not actually rule on enforceability but approved a settlement that allocated value to creditors on account of a make-whole clause and a no-call provision.
Introduction
Introduction
In In re Young Broadcasting, Inc., et al., 430 B.R. 99 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2010), a bankruptcy court strictly construed the change-in-control provisions of a pre-petition credit agreement and refused to confirm an unsecured creditors' committee's plan of reorganization, which had been premised on the reinstatement of the debtors' accelerated secured debt under Section 1124(2) of the Bankruptcy Code.
Enron seems like ancient history but the Second Circuit has just issued an important decision in an Enron appeal confirming that the redemption of commercial paper made through DTC is entitled to the Bankruptcy Code § 546(e) exemption for “settlement payments” and, therefore, exempt from attack as preferential transfers. The Second Circuit held that this is so even though the Enron redemption payments were made prior to stated maturity, becoming the first Circuit Court of Appeal to address this issue. Enron Creditors Recovery Corp. v. Alfa, S.A.B. de C.V.
The U.S. Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision on June 28, 2011, held that Bankruptcy Code § 546(e), which exempts a “Settlement Payment” from a bankruptcy trustee’s avoiding powers, insulated two sellers of Enron Corporation’s commercial paper from suit despite Enron’s early pre- bankruptcy redemption. Enron Creditors Recovery Corp. v. Alfa, S.A.B. de C.V., ___F.3d ___, 2011 WL 2536101 (2d Cir. June 28, 2011) (2-1).
The bankruptcy case of Energy Future Holdings (EFH) and its affiliates has already provided the Delaware bankruptcy court occasion to tackle a number of important bankruptcy questions, including the propriety of using tender offers to settle noteholder claims during the pendency of the case.