On November 30, 2018, Judge Nelson S. Román of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a decision affirming the dismissal of certain claims brought by senior secured creditors against junior secured creditors concerning the alleged breach of standstill and turnover provisions in an intercreditor agreement that governed the creditors’ relationship as creditors with recourse to common collateral. SeeIn re MPM Silicones, LLC, No. 15-CV-2280 (NSR), 2018 WL 6324842 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 30, 2018) (“Momentive”).

In two recent decisions in the General Growth Properties, Inc., et al. chapter 11 cases, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York upheld certain loan provisions which provided for an automatic event of default and imposition of a default rate of interest upon the commencement of a bankruptcy case, and held that certain creditors were entitled to receive postpetition interest at the contractual default rate.  General Growth Properties, Inc. and its affiliated debtors own, develop, and operate regional shopping malls across the United States.

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed the District Court’s ruling in In re Philadelphia Newspapers, LLC.1 The Court allowed Philadelphia Newspapers, LLC to require all-cash bids for the asset sale under their proposed plan. This precluded secured creditors from credit bidding, as long as the plan provided those creditors with the “indubitable equivalent” of the value of their claims.

On December 15, 2009, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit heard oral argument in a closely-watched bankruptcy appeal stemming from the In re Philadelphia Newspapers, LLC chapter 11 case pending in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. At issue in the appeal is the right of a secured creditor of a chapter 11 debtor to credit bid its secured claims, when the debtor proposes to sell the collateral to a third party, “free and clear” of the creditor’s lien, pursuant to a non-consensual (i.e., “cramdown”) plan of reorganization.

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

In the March 2008 issue, we discussed a decision from the In re Urban Communicators PCS, Ltd. Partnership1 case. In that decision, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held that under section 506(b) of the Bankruptcy Code, the Bankruptcy Court could limit the rate of postpetition interest to be paid to an over-secured creditor to an amount less than the contract interest rate.

In Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. v.Knupfer (In re PW, LLC),1 the United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit (the “BAP”) addressed the issue of whether a secured creditor had purchased estate property free and clear of liens, claims and encumbrances outside of a plan of reorganization.

In March 2008, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit decided In re Airadigm Communications, Inc. (Airadigm Communications, Inc. v. FCC),1 a case that built upon the Supreme Court’s decision in FCC v. NextWave Personal Communications, Inc (“NextWave”).2 In NextWave, the Supreme Court held that the FCC’s participation in a bankruptcy proceeding is subject to the provisions of the Bankruptcy Code.

In the January 2008 issue, we reported on In re Solutia, Inc.,1 decided by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. The Solutia court demonstrated how contractual entitlements of debt instruments may be altered in bankruptcy. There, the original issue discount of certain secured notes was found to be interest, rather than principal, causing a significant portion of the noteholders’ claims to be disallowed. In In re Urban Communicators PCS, Ltd.

In UPS Capital Business Credit v. Gencarelli (In re Gencarelli),1 the First Circuit Court of Appeals addressed the issue of whether a secured creditor is entitled to collect a prepayment penalty from a solvent debtor. The Court found that the secured creditor could collect the penalty, whether or not it is reasonable, so long as the penalty is enforceable under state law. The Court reasoned that any other holding would leave open the possibility that an unsecured creditor could recover more from a solvent estate than a secured creditor.

Background