Sprint Nextel Corporation v. U.S. Bank N.A. (In re TerreStar Networks, Inc.), Case No. 10-15446 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y., Aug. 19, 2011)
CASE SNAPSHOT
New bankruptcy forms and rules that took effect December 1, 2011, require secured creditors either to attach evidence of perfection of their security interest to the proof of claim form that they file, or attach a statement of why the documents are not available.
On November 22, 2011, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued a per curiam opinion that piqued the interest of bankruptcy practitioners nationwide and sent secured creditors scrambling to ensure that their rights to a deficiency claim had been properly preserved in pending bankruptcy cases. The Eleventh Circuit held that the IRS had waived its right to an unsecured deficiency by filing a proof of claim that evidenced a secured claim but failed to note that a portion of the claim may be unsecured.
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.
In a victory for secured creditors, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently held inRiver Road Hotel Partners, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank (In re River Road Hotel Partners, LLC), 2011 WL 2547615 (7th Cir. June 28, 2011), that a dissenting class of secured lenders cannot be deprived of the right to credit-bid its claims under a chapter 11 plan that proposes an auction sale of the lenders’ collateral free and clear of liens.
This past quarter end once again reminded us that the economy remains weak and borrowers who have managed to hang on for the past three or four years are running out of staying power. The topic again arose - what to do when a borrower files bankruptcy? Faced with the prospect of throwing good money after bad, some lenders bury their head in the sand and simply wait it out, often with terrible results. Others charge ahead aggressively and run up large legal bills that are not justified by the amount of the obligation or the difficulty of recovery.
A secured creditor's option to credit bid its claim where its collateral is to be sold under a chapter 11 plan is an important protection to ensure that the creditor's collateral is not sold for less than its actual value. Rather than accepting the cash generated by a low bid, the creditor can submit its own bid, up to the amount of its secured claim, and recover its collateral instead. This traditionally recognized right was upset by two fairly recent circuit court decisions, one from the Fifth Circuit and one from the Third Circuit. In re Pacific Lumber Co., 584 F.3d 229 (5th Cir.
When dealing with a debtor in Chapter 11, vendors typically seek to protect against loss by insisting upon payment in advance or on very short terms. However, the monies paid to a vendor following the filing of bankruptcy often constitute the cash collateral of a secured creditor. It is critical that a vendor determine whether the debtor has authorization to use cash collateral.
The opinion issued by the Delaware Supreme Court (the “Court”) in the matter of CML V, LLC v. Bax, No. 735, 2010 (Del. Supr. Sept.
The Seventh Circuit recently weighed in on the issue of whether a secured creditor has a right to credit bid at the sale of its collateral in connection with a chapter 11 plan of reorganization. In its decision in In re River Road Hotel Partners, LLC, Case Nos. 10-3597 & 10- 3598 (7th Cir. June 28, 2011), the Seventh Circuit split with decisions of the Third and Fifth Circuit Courts of Appeal holding that secured creditors have no such right to credit bid, raising the prospect that the issue may be ripe for review by the United States Supreme Court.