Earlier this year, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit decided in In re Lett that objections to a bankruptcy court’s approval of a cram-down chapter 11 plan on the basis of noncompliance with the “absolute priority rule” may be raised for the first time on appeal. The Eleventh Circuit ruled that “[a] bankruptcy court has an independent obligation to ensure that a proposed plan complies with [the] absolute priority rule before ‘cramming’ that plan down upon dissenting creditor classes,” whether or not stakeholders “formally” object on that basis.
ReGen Capital I, Inc. v. UAL Corporation, et al., (In the Matter of UAL Corporation, et al.), 635 F.3d 312 (7th Cir. 2011).
CASE SNAPSHOT
Introduction
The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware recently dismissed equitable subordination and fraudulent transfer claims filed by the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Champion Enterprises, Inc.
Under the proposed new insolvency regime created by Dodd-Frank, the FDIC may be appointed as receiver of a financial company if it is determined that the financial company is in default or in danger of default, and the failure of the financial company would have serious adverse effects on financial stability in the United States.The receiver is required to liquidate the failing financial company in a manner that imposes all losses on the company’s creditors and shareholders (rather than on taxpayers).
Spectrum Scan LLC and Joli Lofstedt, Trustee v. Valley Bank & Trust Co. (In re Tracy Broadcasting Corporation), 438 B.R. 323 (Bankr. D. Colo. 2010)
CASE SNAPSHOT
In re Olde Prairie Block Owner, LLC, Bankr. No. 10B22668 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. March 11, 2011)
CASE SNAPSHOT
Earlier this year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that a proposed “gifting” plan distributing value from the second lien lenders to the prepetition equity holder violated the absolute priority rule and was confirmed in error.2 This decision, by a 2-1 panel vote,3 reversed the decisions of the Bankruptcy and District Courts for the Southern District of New York. The Second Circuit also affirmed unanimously the designation of the vote of an indirect competitor of the debtor that held no claims prior to the petition date.
The U.S. Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision on June 28, 2011, held that Bankruptcy Code § 546(e), which exempts a “Settlement Payment” from a bankruptcy trustee’s avoiding powers, insulated two sellers of Enron Corporation’s commercial paper from suit despite Enron’s early pre- bankruptcy redemption. Enron Creditors Recovery Corp. v. Alfa, S.A.B. de C.V., ___F.3d ___, 2011 WL 2536101 (2d Cir. June 28, 2011) (2-1).
While section 503(b)(9) claims deserve priority payment over general unsecured claims, they do not provide a basis for stripping a debtor’s defenses in determining the allowed amount of a section 503(b)(9) claim.
Note: Pepper Hamilton LLP serves as co-counsel to the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (the Committee) in the ADI case. The views expressed herein are solely those of the authors and not of the Committee.