An opinion from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in In re Motors Liquidation Company, relying on the Delaware Supreme Court’s answer to a certified question highlight the need to focus on the details w

Last year, the 112-year old retailer J.C. Penney was regularly in the news – and it was rarely good.  The stock was in a free-fall, in the process of dropping from about $20 per share in May 2013 to a low of a little more than $6 dollars per share in late October.  Media reports were grim, focusing on the attempt and failure of the former Apple executive Ron Johnson to turn the business around.  But now, as we approach the critical holiday season, J.C.

One of the more effective risk-mitigation legal tools used by  senior real estate lenders is the single purpose entity borrower.  Among other things, having a single purpose, bankruptcy  remote borrower makes avoiding the risks of bankruptcy easier.  Even in bankruptcy, if the borrower is truly single purpose, and it  keeps the universe of creditors small, the senior secured lender  will have an easier time defeating any plan of reorganization  proposed by the borrower because it will control all of the  legitimate classes of creditors by virtue of th

It has not taken long for another bankruptcy court to question the propriety of allowing secured creditors to credit bid their loans. You may recall that in the case of Fisker Automotive Holdings, Inc., et al. a Delaware bankruptcy court limited a creditor’s ability to credit bid based on self-serving testimony from a competing bidder that it would not participate in an auction absent the court capping the secured creditor’s credit bid.

Earlier this year, we reported on a decision limiting a secured creditor's right to credit bid purchased debt (capping the credit bid at the discounted price paid for the debt) to facilitate an auction in Fisker Automotive Holdings' chapter 11 case.¹ In the weeks that followed, the debtor held a competitive (nineteen-round) auction and ultimately selected Wanxiang America Corporation, rather than the secured creditor, as the w

Once might be considered an aberration. Is twice the new normal?

As is well known, the right to credit bid is the entitlement of a secured lender to bid the amount of its outstanding claims at the sale of its collateral. If the secured lender places the winning bid, no money is exchanged and the purchase price is offset against the existing claims. Credit bidding provides an important right to secured lenders in ensuring that their collateral is not sold for a depressed value. If a secured lender thinks its collateral is being sold too cheaply, it has the option of taking the collateral in exchange for some or all its claims.

Bankruptcy court denizens, especially buyers of secured debt at a discount, were jolted by the recent Delaware Bankruptcy Court decision in In re Fisker Automotive Holdings, Inc. In that decision, the court capped at $25 million the amount a secured creditor was permitted to credit bid its $168 million claim at a bankruptcy Section 363 sale. The $25 million credit bid cap correlated to the amount the secured creditor paid for the debt. While Section 363(k) of the Bankruptcy Code permits a bankruptcy court to limit credit bidding “for cause,” the concerns he

Several recent legal developments will likely impact acquisition finance.

The opinion by the Delaware bankruptcy court in In re Fisker Auto. Holdings, Inc., raised alarm bells for secured creditors throughout the country. Many worry that it will diminish the valuable right of secured creditors to credit bid, which is the right to bid up to the amount of a secured claim without paying cash.