Rainbow 215, LLC Chapter 11

Appropriate Rate of Interest in a Cramdown--Judge's Confirmation of Plan of Reorganization of a Single-Asset Real Estate Developer



According to the Bankruptcy Code, a confirmable Plan of Reorganization must provide dissenting secured creditors a sum of cash payments equaling or exceeding the amount of the creditor's allowed secured claim AND the present value of those cash payments, as discounted by "an appropriate interest rate," must also equal or exceed the amount of that claim. In other words, the debtor’s new loan is going to be “crammed down” on the old creditor—and the biggest thing open to discussion is the interest rate that the unwilling lender is now going to receive.

The Supreme Court's "Till" decision has been used to provide guidance as to that "appropriate interest rate." The decision in the case “Till v. SCS Credit Corp., 541 U.S. 465 (2004)” acknowledges certain calculation approaches to arriving at said rate and rejects many of them, while approving of a couple of them.

Judge Markell, District of Nevada, discusses the “Till” decision and other matters in the context of Rainbow 215, LLC, a single-asset entity that developed, constructed and managed a retail mall in Las Vegas. He outlines ramifications of there being no "market" for the new loan, then defines an approved methodology for calculating "an appropriate rate of interest" given "Till" guidance. In this context, Judge Markell especially makes use of the evidence provided by expert witness Kenneth Funsten, CFA, of FamCo Advisory Services of Los Angeles.

The new interest rate afforded the reorganized debtor will have a material effect on the Debtor’s (hopefully) profitable reemergence from Chapter 11 protection. The Supreme Court has provided guidance. It is paramount to understand not only the SC decision but its applications in lower courts. This memorandum should be extremely helpful for operational and legal advisors of bankrupt and reorganizing companies, developers and even individuals.

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.

Written by:

Published In:

Reference Info:Decision | Federal, 9th Circuit, Nevada | United States

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Kenneth Funsten, CFA | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »

All the intelligence you need, in one easy email:

Great! Your first step to building an email digest of JD Supra authors and topics. Log in with LinkedIn so we can start sending your digest...

Sign up for your custom alerts now, using LinkedIn ›

* With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name.