Despite lower-than-average Chapter 11 activity in 2014, the legal landscape for distressed investors has continued to evolve, with significant legal developments in credit bidding, make-whole premiums and intercreditor agreements. By staying apprised of the evolving jurisprudence in these areas, distressed investors can mitigate risks that have foiled lenders in recent cases.
Credit Bidding
The Bankruptcy Code's so-called "cramdown" statute provides debtors with a significant tool that can be used to impose a reorganization plan upon recalcitrant secured lenders, subject to fulfillment of certain requirements. In particular, Section 1129(b) of the Bankruptcy Code allows a bankruptcy court to approve a debtor's reorganization plan over the objections of a secured creditor so long as the plan is "fair and equitable" to the creditor.
The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 contains two sets of provisions for managing the insolvency of financial institutions. First, the legislation creates an Orderly Liquidation Authority (OLA), a comprehensive regime for resolving a financial institution whose failure is determined to potentially endanger the U.S. financial system.
Corporate Chapter 11 filings remained relatively low in 2014, down slightly from 2013, due to a robust capital market environment, low interest rates and easy access to financing. These and other factors allowed highly leveraged borrowers that might otherwise have been Chapter 11 restructuring candidates to refinance or pursue other nonjudicial restructuring alternatives. Among those companies that filed corporate bankruptcies, the District of Delaware and the Southern District of New York continued to capture the lion's share of cases.
In this installment of the Bankruptcy Blog’s series on the ABI Commission to Study the Reform of Chapter 11, we turn our attention to the recommendations and findings on the trustee’s avoiding powers (section V.C.), the standard for reviewing settlements and compromises (section V.G.), and the in pari delicto doctrine (section V.H.).
Avoiding Powers
On January 21, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit entered an opinion holding that an authorized UCC-3 termination statement is effective, for purposes of Delaware’s Uniform Commercial Code (the “UCC”), to terminate the perfection of the underlying security interest even though the secured lender never intended to extinguish the security interest and mistakenly authorized the filing.1
Background
n re Sterling Bluff Investors, LLC, 515 B.R. 902 (Bankr. S.D. Ga. 2014) –
A mortgagee moved to dismiss a real estate debtor’s chapter 11 case, or in the alternative for relief from the automatic stay. It contended that the debtor filed bankruptcy in bad faith, and that this was a “single asset real estate” case subject to special provisions regarding its entitlement to relief from the stay.
This is a continuation of Part 1, discussing a number of published and unpublished decisions by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and the United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Eighth Circuit (the “BAP”) that impact both consumer and business bankruptcy practice throughout the circuit.
There were nearly a million bankruptcy cases filed by individuals and businesses in 2014. It is safe to say that only the tiniest fraction of such debtors have any familiarity with the Supreme Court’s decision in Stern v.
On October 20, 2014, we issued a Legal News Alert commenting on a decision of the Delaware Supreme Court, on certification from the Second Circuit, regarding the effect of a mistaken UCC-3 termination statement.The Delaware Supreme Court held that an indisputably mistaken UCC-3 termination statement that purported to terminate a lender’s security interest in a $1.