The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held on March 25, 2009, that a bankruptcy court had improperly surcharged property in the hands of a credit bidding asset buyer with the expenses of the judicial sale. In re Skuna River Lumber, LLC, __F.3d ___, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 6175 (5th Cir. 3/25/09). Explaining that the “bankruptcy court had no jurisdiction to take such action,” the Fifth Circuit also vacated the district court’s improper ruling that the bankruptcy judge could enter a personal judgment against the asset buyer. Id., at *9.  

Facts

In a recent decision, the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware allowed the collateral agent for senior lenders to credit bid for the debtors’ assets even though all of the senior lenders had not authorized the bid. One of the senior lenders had objected to the group’s acquisition of the debtors’ assets by the credit bid. In re GWLS Holdings, Inc., 2009 WL 453110 (Bankr. D. Del. Feb. 23, 2009) (Walsh, J.).

A bankruptcy filing by a property owner may not be the only action that prevents foreclosure of a security interest in that property held by a secured creditor. In a growing list of cases, courts also have held the bankruptcy of a junior secured creditor with a lien on the property invokes the automatic stay against such action.

Reinhardt v. Vanderbilt Mortgage and Finance Inc. (In re Reinhardt)

563 F.3d 558 (6th Cir. Ohio 2009)

In the last several months, a number of major mass media companies have filed for chapter 11 relief, including Ion Media Networks, Sun-Times Media Group, Tribune Company, Young Broadcasting and NV Broadcasting. With the economy still struggling to recover, and asset values continuing to decline, commentators speculate that even more mass media related bankruptcies are on the horizon. Certain aspects of a mass media bankruptcy present unique challenges for the various stakeholders due to the special regulatory requirements involved.

The rate of loan defaults has been on the rise, and given the current state of the economy, this trend is likely to continue. Doubtful loans may only get worse, raising that subject that lenders never want to hear, much less discuss: Foreclosure. Senior lenders will almost certainly have a first priority lien on all of the general assets of the borrower, and to the extent a junior lender is even permitted a second priority lien on these assets, it will be subordinate to the senior lender’s lien pursuant to a subordination agreement.

On August 11, 2009, in a long-anticipated ruling in the Chapter 11 case of General Growth Properties, Inc. (GGP), the court denied the motions to dismiss that had been brought on behalf of several of the property-level lenders.1 Few, if any, observers expected that the court would grant these motions and actually dismiss any of the individual SPE borrowers from the larger GGP bankruptcy, as doing so would have likely opened the door for the other secured lenders to seek dismissal.

Part One of this article, published in the last edition of the Restructuring Review, examined recent developments in the gaming industry, focusing on strategies employed by gaming companies to increase liquidity and avoid insolvency. Part Two focuses on how potential buyers can use the bankruptcy process to purchase gaming facilities, free and clear of prior liens, and describes certain complications inherent in the acquisition of this type of asset.

Acquiring Gaming Facilities through Chapter 11

Sale Process

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has held that there is a federal common law of receivership in the context of real property security interest, joining the Eleventh Circuit. Can. Life Assurance Co. v. LaPeter, 557 F.3d 1103 (9th Cir. 2009).

It seems safe to assume that no lender would extend high-dollar credit without first having a deep knowledge of the party accepting the funds. Certainly, such deep knowledge would include the precise legal name of that borrower. Nevertheless, recent cases continue to demonstrate the prevalence of filing UCC-1 financing statements that may be deemed “seriously misleading” as to the name of the debtor and, therefore, ineffective to fix the secured creditor’s place in the chain of priority.