SCOTUS' RadLAX Decision Affirms Lenders' Rights to Credit Bid in Chapter 11


photo of Matthew ClarkMay a Chapter 11 plan permit a debtor to auction property free and clear of a creditor’s lien while preventing that creditor from credit-bidding the amount of its debt?  A question that split the U.S. Circuit Courts was settled when earlier this week the Supreme Court came out 8-0 on the side of the secured creditors in a decision of paramount interest to lenders with bankrupt borrowers (Justice Kennedy took no part in the decision).

The concise, 12-page opinion penned by Justice Scalia in RadLAX Gateway Hotel v. Amalgamated Bank concludes that the debtor’s proposed auction procedures – which prevented the secure creditors from being able to credit-bid – could not satisfy the Code’s requirement that a cramdown be “fair and equitable” to non-consenting secured creditors.  Earlier cases from the 3rd, 5th and 7th Circuits had created a split that called into question what had been, for many, an accepted tenant of the 363 sale – that a secured creditor could protect itself from the potential of a depressed auction price by credit bidding and obtaining the auctioned asset for its own account.

As background, in order for a cramdown plan to be confirmed over the objection of a class of secured creditors, the plan must be deemed to be “fair and equitable” – a determination requiring that one of three tests be met.  One test (relating to 363 sales (1129(b)(2)(A)(ii)) specifically requires that the secured creditor be permitted to credit bid.  However, an alternate test (1129(b)(2)(A)(iii)) requires only that the secured creditor be provided with the “indubitable equivalent” of its claim.  The 3rd and 5th Circuits interpreted these criteria as wholly independent of each other and therefore determined that a lien-free sale of assets by a debtor that would provide a secured creditor with the “indubitable equivalent” of its claim would be permitted under (iii) - notwithstanding the fact that the creditor was precluded from credit-bidding (in apparent violation of (ii)).


The 7th Circuit took a differing view in RadLAX when considering a plan similar in many respects to those confirmed by the 3rd and 5th.  In RadLAX, the Appeals Court prevented the confirmation of a plan that proposed auctioning the property (presumably to a stalking horse bidder for an amount reported to be approximately $50 million) and using the sale proceeds to repay secured creditors because those secured creditors were prohibited from credit-bidding.  In affirming the lower court’s decision, Scalia commented that a statutory interpretation that would allow the “indubitable equivalent” test to permit what the “363-sale test” would proscribe “to be hyperliteral and contrary to common sense”.  (His words not mine.) 


With June’s annual flood of decisions from the Supremes nigh, this decision stands as an important one for real estate lenders – granting lenders a critical strategic advantage over what shape a Chapter 11 plan might take.



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.

© Dechert LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:


Dechert LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:

Sign up to create your digest using LinkedIn*

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.

Already signed up? Log in here

*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. Or, sign up using your email address.