In Royal Bank v. 2021847 Ontario Ltd. et al. (2007), Carswell Ont. 8283, the plaintiff Royal Bank sought summary judgment against the guarantors of a credit facility it granted to 2021847 Ontario Ltd. (“2021847”). The amount the plaintiff sought against the guarantors was the deficiency remaining after the plaintiff had appointed a receiver over the assets of the debtor company. The proceeds from the realization of the receivership were insufficient to payout 2021847’s credit facility.

In Father & Son Investments Inc. v. Maverick Brewing Corp. (2007), 2007 CarswellAlta 1452 (Alta. Q.B.), Maverick Brewing Corporation (“Maverick”) operated a brewery in Edmonton in space leased from Five Oaks Inc. (“Five Oaks”). The two major creditors of Maverick were Father & Son Investments Inc. (“Father & Son”) and Five Oaks. Pursuant to a postponement and subordination of security interest document, Five Oaks had priority over Father & Son to the assets of Maverick.

In a “loan-to-own” investment, an investor acquires secured debt at a discount to leverage the face amount of the debt in an asset purchase or debt-to-equity swap. For example, if an investor can buy US$50 million worth of debt for US$25 million, it can, in a bankruptcy proceeding, bid on the underlying assets that secure the debt at a 50 percent discount, because the investor can credit bid the face value of the debt as the equivalent of cash in a sale of collateral in bankruptcy, thus creating a competitive advantage over cash or strategic bidders.

Lending to a foreign company? If you choose English law to govern your facility documents and provide for the English court to have exclusive jurisdiction, an English scheme may be a viable means of restructuring the debt later, if the need arises.

Lending to a foreign company? If you choose English law to govern your facility documents and provide for the English court to have exclusive jurisdiction, an English scheme may be a viable means of restructuring the debt later, if the need arises.

On March 22, 2010, in a 2-1 decision, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that a debtor may proceed with an auction sale under a Chapter 11 plan without providing a secured lender the right to credit bid for its collateral.

Over the last two years, with the fluctuations in the economic market, commercial real estate in distress has become a lively topic among insolvency practitioners and even in court decisions.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a secured creditor cannot be denied its right to “credit bid”—i.e., to offset the amount of its debt against the purchase price of assets, rather than bidding in cash—in sales of collateral undertaken in connection with plans of reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. In so ruling, the Court resolved a widely publicized split of authority among the Circuit Courts of Appeal, and rejected the Third Circuit’s ruling in the Philadelphia Newspapers case.¹

Introduction

The US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has weighed in on the question of whether a secured creditor’s ability to credit bid—to offset the amount of the creditor’s debt against the purchase price of sale assets rather than bid in cash—is a right guaranteed by statute even in “cramdown” plans of reorganization conducted under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. On June 28, 2011, the court ruled in favor of secured creditors with its much anticipated decision in In re River Road Hotel Partners, LLC (River Road).1