Section 1129(b)(2)(A)(iii) of the Bankruptcy Code allows a court to find that a chapter 11 “cramdown” plan is “fair and equitable” to an objecting class of secured creditors if the plan provides for the realization by such holders of the “indubitable equivalent” of their claims. Section 1129(b)(2)(A)(ii), through reference to Section 363(k), permits the sale of collateral free and clear of liens if secured creditors are allowed to “credit bid”—that is, to bid the value of their claim in an auction of the collateral.

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

The US Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) estimates that by the end of 2010, more than 300 banks will have failed, and that the cost of resolving these failures may reach $100 billion over the next four years.1

The Seventh Circuit has reversed the district  court’s decision in the Sentinel matter and ruled that the Bankruptcy Court’s allowance of a pre-petition transfer and authorization of a post-petition transfer of assets by Sentinel to its FCM customers was permitted under the Bankruptcy Code.  The District Court had previously avoided the $22.5 million pre-petition transfer of funds to FCM customers and the $297 million post-petition transfer of funds authorized by the Bankruptcy Court.

On February 4th, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of claims brought by plaintiffs, who controlled a mutual bank before it collapsed, against the FDIC as both regulator and as receiver. The Administrative Procedures Act (the "APA") claim against the FDIC as regulator, which seeks money damages and an order directing the FDIC to treat $23.6 million in subordinated debt as bank deposits, is a claim for substitute relief barred by the APA.

On December 1st, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the approval of a receiver's plan to distribute the assets of a failed investment manager, finding that where a receivership trust lacks sufficient assets to fully repay investors and the investors' funds are commingled, a pro rata distribution plan is appropriate, and that the trial court properly rejected the objectors' arguments that their redemption requests made them creditors and not equity holders. SEC v.

On March 1st, the Seventh Circuit held that negative equity is included in a creditor's purchase money security interest and is not subject to a bankruptcy court's cramdown authority under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code. In re Aubrey Howard.

On June 28, 2011, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit became the latest circuit to weigh in on the hotly contested question of whether a debtor can deny a secured creditor the right to credit bid as part of a Chapter 11 plan providing for the sale of assets encumbered by the secured creditor’s liens. InIn re River Road Hotel Partners, LLC,1 the Seventh Circuit upheld the right of secured creditors to credit bid, a decision that runs directly contrary to recent opinions in the Third and Fifth Circuits.

In reaction to a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Lubrizol Enterprises, Inc. v. Richmond Metal Finishers, Inc., 756 F.2d 1043 (4th Cir. 1985), in which the court held that a licensee of patents, copyrights and trademarks loses its rights if the trustee or debtor in possession rejects a license under the Bankruptcy Code under which the debtor was the licensor, Congress enacted section 365(n) of the Bankruptcy Code (11 U.S.C. § 365(n)).

The McCaskill-Bond Amendment to the Federal Aviation Act provides that a merger of air carriers requires the new entity to merge the seniority lists of the two carriers’ employees. Republic Airways acquired Midwest Airlines, and thereafter the Teamsters Union, which represented the flight attendants at Republic’s older carriers, refused to integrate the seniority lists for flight attendants and placed Midwest’s flight attendants at the bottom of the seniority roster. A group of Midwest flight attendants challenged the action, asserting that it violated the amendment.