“Give ups” by senior classes of creditors to achieve confirmation of a plan have become an increasingly common feature of the chapter 11 process, as stakeholders strive to avoid disputes that can prolong the bankruptcy case and drain estate assets by driving up administrative costs.

SRZ's reorganization group recently helped a lender avoid a surcharge against its collateral for legal fees. U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Arthur N. Votolato of the District of Rhode Island handed the lender the important victory on July 5, 2007, after an earlier trial. In re California Webbing Industries, Inc., 2007 WL 1953018 (Bankr. D. R. I., 7/5/07). In a detailed 22-page opinion, Judge Votolato held that the lender never consented to the use of its collateral to pay the fees of counsel for a Chapter 11 debtor and the creditors' committee in its failed reorganization case.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, on July 9, 2007, decisively affirmed a bankruptcy court's dismissal of an equitable subordination complaint filed by a creditors' committee against eight investment fund lenders. Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Applied Theory Corporation v. Halifax Fund, L.P., et al. (In re Applied Theory Corporation), ___ F.3d ___, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 16180 (2d Cir. July 9, 2007).

In In re Calpine Corporation, 2007 WL 685595 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2007), the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York considered the issue of whether secured creditors whose debt was being paid prior to its original maturity date were entitled to a prepayment premium.

In Motorola, Inc. v. Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (In re Iridium Operating LLC), 478 F.3d 452 (2d Cir. 2007), the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (the “Committee”) and the debtors’ lenders sought approval of a settlement prior to confirmation of a plan of reorganization. While the Court concluded that many aspects of the settlement might otherwise be approved, it found that a provision that distributed funds in violation of the absolute priority rule lacked sufficient justification.

The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit recently held that an oversecured lender holds at least an unsecured claim for contractual prepayment penalties against a solvent debtor. UPS Capital Business Credit v. Gencarelli (In re Gencarelli), 2007 BL 91656 (1st Cir., Aug. 30, 2007). As the court explained, "[t]his is a difficult question that has significant ramifications for the commercial lending industry." Id. at 16.

A decision by the Illinois Court of Appeals reinforces the importance of providing pre-disposition notice to preserve a deficiency claim against an obligor. General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Stoval, No. 1-06-1858, ____ N.W. 2d ____ (Ill. Ct. App. June 29, 2007).

Creditors have recently made some headway in collecting the full amount to which they are contractually entitled pursuant to various debt instruments. In In re Calpine Corp.,1 reported in our summer 2007 newsletter, the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York permitted a secured creditor to collect damages (albeit in the form of an unsecured claim) caused by dashed expectations due to the early repayment of its debt.

Determining a question of first impression within its circuit, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit recently held that an oversecured creditor is entitled to collect a bargained-for pre-payment penalty from a solvent debtor, regardless of the penalty’s “reasonableness” under section 506(b) of the Bankruptcy Code.

In so holding, the First Circuit reversed the decisions of the U.S. Bankruptcy and District Courts for the District of Rhode Island. Gencarelli v. UPS Capital Business Credit, 50 F.3d 1 (1st Cir., Aug. 30, 2007).

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