Fool Me Once...: When Lenders are the Losers in Bankruptcy Court

by Dechert LLP
Contact

photo of Krystyna M. BlakesleeThis is about bad law in the bankruptcy courts, but let us instructively begin with Charlie Brown. Bear with me. Everyone knows the classic Peanuts comic strip, which features the running joke of Lucy and Charlie Brown playing football – Charlie Brown goes to kick the football, only to have Lucy pull it away at the last second, leaving Lucy laughing and Charlie Brown on his back. Every time, Lucy promises Charlie Brown that this time she will let him kick the ball. Charlie Brown, blithely ignoring the obvious, goes to kick the football. Lucy, of course, pulls the ball away again, every time.

So what does Charlie Brown’s cheery optimism in the face of Lucy’s perfidiousness have to do with lenders and Bankruptcy Court? The U.S. Bankruptcy Court in the Southern District of Indiana has been green lighting a debtor’s use of a bit of boldface legerdemain, over and over again, to keep control and ownership of his properties post-default and post-bankruptcy. If this were to become a common outcome for single asset bankruptcy cases, lenders’ reasonable expectations about bankruptcy would be fundamentally frustrated. So why should a lender keep making non-recourse loans and have the ball pulled away?

It began with In re Greenwood Point, LP, 445 B.R. 885 (2011). There, the court confirmed a plan in which the wife of debtor’s sole direct and indirect owner (the “Owner”) purchased the debtor’s assets for $100,000 under a chapter 11 plan. The debtor (a SARE debtor) owned a retail shopping center in Indiana, which was subject to a mortgage and assignment of leases and rents that served as security for a $7,650,000 loan. The loan went into maturity default, and on the day the Superior Court was scheduled to hold a hearing on the secured party’s motion for a receiver to be appointed, the debtor filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11. The property was managed by an affiliate, (the “Manager”), and after filing for bankruptcy, the Owner sold his equity in the Manager to his wife in exchange for $50,000. The Owner kept his position as president and CEO of the Manager, and continued to receive an annual salary of $500,000 from the Manager. Over the objections of some of the debtor’s creditors, including the lender, the Court approved the Chapter 11 plan wherein the debtor’s assets were purchased by the Owner’s wife (yup, the same wife who purchased the interests in the Manager), in exchange for a cash infusion of $100,000.

In the next, nearly identical case, In re Castleton Plaza, LP, the same Owner owned all of the equity interests in a different SARE debtor that owned a different retail shopping center in Indiana, on which it had taken out a $9,500,000 loan. In a familiar turn of events, the court confirmed a plan of reorganization in which the equity in the debtor was transferred to the Owner’s wife (same wife) and the Manager (which, if you remember, is now owned by his wife and managed by Mr. Owner as president and CEO) in exchange for a $75,000 cash infusion from the missus. This case is currently on appeal before the Seventh Circuit.

But wait, and I’m not making this up, there is a third case, In re Georgetown Plaza LP, working its way through Bankruptcy Court in Indiana, in which the same Owner owns yet another retail shopping center and has proposed yet another cramdown plan of the same type. And if the courts will keep confirming them, why not! This case is currently before the Bankruptcy Court and no plan of reorganization has yet been approved.

The issue in each of these cases is the same. The courts have had to evaluate whether the plan violated the Bankruptcy Code’s Absolute Priority Rule (11 U.S.C. §1129(b)(2)(B)(ii)). The Absolute Priority Rule requires that the claims of an objecting impaired class of creditors must be paid in full before the equity may retain any interest, unless the equity contributes “new value” to the enterprise. New value must be contributed (1) in money or money’s worth, (2) be reasonably equivalent to the value of the new equity interest in the reorganized debtor and (3) be necessary for implementation of a feasible reorganization plan. (See the LaSalle case for an in depth discussion of the Absolute Priority Rule.) Although the court in Castleton Plaza held that the Owner’s wife and Manager were insiders, and any proposed sale to an insider is subject to a higher degree of scrutiny when evaluating the Absolute Priority Rule, the court stopped short of requiring that such a sale to an insider be market tested to establish that the “new value” was adequate. The court determined that because the Owner’s wife was not just a “straw man” for the Owner (she was using her own money to fund the purchases, which would be added to her own substantial investment portfolio), she was not former equity – only an insider of former equity. Other courts (for example, here and here) have required a market test where sales to insiders are concerned. That is just common sense.

In addition to the outcome of the application of the Absolute Priority Rule, the other issues before the Seventh Circuit on appeal are (1) whether the sale of equity interests to an insider violates the Bankruptcy Code (§363(b)) where there has been no market test, (2) whether treatment of the lender’s secured claim was “fair and equitable” (§1129(b)(1)) and (3) whether the plan was “feasible” (§1129(a)(11)). (Similar issues were raised in Greenwood and are being argued in Georgetown Plaza).

In each instance, the lenders’ primary objection is that the amount of money constituting the “new value” was not market tested, and was far below any reasonably equivalent value of the equity stake in question. And in each case, the debtor’s argument was that there was no market for the asset and any market test was impossible. To make it worse, in the Castleton Plaza case, the lender offered to pay double what the Owner’s wife had paid, but the court still confirmed the debtor’s proposed plan.

This just doesn’t seem to pass the giggle test. You should not be able to avoid the clearly intended outcome of a completely underwater single asset real estate bankruptcy, e.g., turnover of the collateral to the lender, by having some blood relative shill for the old equity where the only testimony on the value of the equity interests comes from the debtor and pretend it’s all an arm’s length bona fide reorganization through the infusion of new equity. I mean, I give our debtor points for chutzpah and creativity, but this is wrong and we hope the Seventh Circuit gets it right. The Bankruptcy Code needs to provide consistent and predictable outcomes for situations where the debtor cannot repay the debt. This isn’t that. Bad decisions like these impair credit formation. Add this to other recent regulatory and judicial mischief which frustrates the reasonable expectations of the parties to a lending relationship and the willingness of lenders to lend will be suppressed.

Maybe this gets fixed. If not, it’s yet another “teachable moment” that the judicial process will often disappoint. Decisions like these serve as a reminder of the difficulty lenders can face in bankruptcy, which at times seems less like a sensible and predictable process for resolving insolvency and more like a get-out-of-jail card for the nimble debtor. I guess this is what is meant by a “fresh start”.

 

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
Contact
more
less

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 using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*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.