On April 23, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court approved amendments to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. The amended rules automatically become effective on December 1, 2012, unless Congress acts before then to reject, modify, or delay the rule changes. Several of the amendments involve technical and conforming changes to eliminate inconsistencies within the existing Bankruptcy Rules, as well as changes designed to make the bankruptcy rules consistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
The Issue
The issue is whether the insolvency of a borrower under a non-recourse loan can trigger recourse liability for itself and its “bad boy,” non-recourse carve-out guarantors.
The U.S. Supreme Court in RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank, ___ S. Ct. ___, 2012 WL 1912197 (May 29, 2012), held that a debtor may not confirm a chapter 11 "cramdown" plan that provides for the sale of collateral free and clear of existing liens, but does not permit a secured creditor to credit-bid at the sale. The unanimous ruling written by Justice Scalia (with Justice Kennedy recused) resolved a split among the Third, Fifth, and Seventh Circuits.
On May 15, 2012, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued a fraudulent transfer ruling in TOUSA, Inc.'s chapter 11 case with wide-ranging implications for the financing community. As discussed herein, this decision weakens protections for secured lenders, especially when extending credit to distressed borrowers.
Where an insured has assigned away its rights to recover available insurance, the insured’s “empty shoes” do not necessarily prevent an excess carrier that pays defense costs rightfully owed by primary carriers from pursuing the primary carriers based a contractual subrogation theory. An excess carrier proceeding on this basis typically “stands in the shoes of the insured,” obtaining only those rights held by the insured. Nonetheless, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals found last week that where an excess carrier picks up the bill for an insured’s defense, it may recover fr
In a unanimous decision, on May 29, 2012, the Supreme Court of the United States upheld an important protection against “cramdown” afforded to lenders in Chapter 11 cases.RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank, 566 U.S. , No. 11-166 (May 29, 2012). In RadLAX, the Supreme Court held that a Chapter 11 debtor could not deprive a secured creditor of its right to credit bid for property to be sold under a plan of reorganization.
Occasionally we find a bankruptcy case that we know will be of interest to lenders, and this is one of them. I’m calling this one a “two-step” not just because it makes for a catchy title, but also because this is the second time we’ve seen this case, and this time the outcome is less favorable.
The U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision on May 29, 2012, finding that a chapter 11 bankruptcy plan of liquidation is not confirmable over a secured lender’s objection if such plan prohibits the lender from credit bidding at a sale of its collateral.1 See RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC et al. v. Amalgamated Bank, No. 11-166, 566 U.S. ___ (2012).
The United States Supreme Court, in the case of Radlax Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank (“Radlax”), ruled that secured creditors have the same right to credit bid in collateral sales under a plan of reorganization as they do in sales under Section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code (“Section 363 Sales”).
Whether a secured creditor has an absolute right to credit bid at a sale under a chapter 11 plan has been the subject of conflicting decisions rendered by the Third, Fifth and Seventh Circuits.1 The United States Supreme Court has resolved these inconsistent rulings with its decision in RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC, et al., v. Amalgamated Bank, 2 which affirmed the Seventh Circuit’s holding that a secured creditor has an absolute right to credit bid in a sale under a chapter 11 plan.