"Supreme Court Rules On Credit Bidding"

by Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

[authors: Ron E. Meisler, David M. Turetsky, Brandon M. Duncomb]  

In a highly anticipated opinion decided on May 29, 2012, the United States Supreme Court held that Chapter 11 debtors could not sell collateral free and clear of secured lenders’ liens under a “cramdown” plan of reorganization without allowing such secured lenders to credit bid at the sale.1 RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank, No. 11-166, slip op. (S. Ct. May 29, 2012).

As more fully discussed below, the Supreme Court’s decision in RadLAX resolved a much-debated issue that created a split among the Seventh Circuit and the Third and Fifth Circuits. More specifically, at issue was whether Bankruptcy Code Section 1129(b)(2)(A) — a “cramdown” provision — provides a basis for depriving dissenting secured creditors of the right to credit bid the amount of their debt when their collateral is proposed to be sold free and clear of liens pursuant to a bankruptcy plan and the plan provides the secured creditors with the indubitable equivalent of their claims.

Factual Background   

The Supreme Court’s decision in RadLAX arose from two single-asset Chapter 11 bankruptcy cases filed in the Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Nos. 09-B-30029, 09-B-30047). The debtors in the underlying bankruptcy cases had financed the construction of the Radisson Hotel at Los Angeles Airport and the InterContinental Chicago O’Hare Hotel with approximately $300 million in loans that were secured by liens on the applicable hotels. At the time the debtors filed for Chapter 11 relief, however, the amount of their secured lenders’ claims exceeded the value of the hotels that were subject to the liens.

Seeking to exit Chapter 11 without the support of their secured lenders, the debtors proposed bid procedures that contemplated plan sales of the secured lenders’ collateral free and clear of liens but without allowing such lenders the right to credit bid. Instead, the plans purported to provide the secured lenders with the “indubitable equivalent” of their claims by distributing most of the cash proceeds from the sale to such lenders. The secured lenders objected.

Statutory Framework and Circuit Split

The disagreement between the debtors and the secured lenders arose from their differing interpretations of the Bankruptcy Code’s cramdown provision — in particular, Section 1129(b)(2)(A). Pursuant to Bankruptcy Code Section 1129(b)(1), a Chapter 11 plan may be confirmed over the opposition of a dissenting class of claims so long as the plan does not discriminate unfairly against, and is fair and equitable to, the dissenting class of claims. Section 1129(b)(2)(A) provides further guidance by identifying three circumstances in which a plan may satisfy the “fair and equitable” requirement with respect to a dissenting class of secured claims:

(i) secured creditors retain their liens to the extent of their secured claims and receive deferred cash payments at least equal to their secured claims that have a present value that is not less than the claimholder’s interest in the collateral;

(ii) collateral is sold under the plan subject to the secured creditors’ right to credit bid under Bankruptcy Code Section 363(k);2 or

(iii) secured creditors receive the “indubitable equivalent” of their secured claims.

The debtors in RadLAX argued that their proposed bid procedures and the resulting plan satisfied the “fair and equitable” requirement because, even though the dissenting secured lenders were not allowed to credit bid, the plan provided such lenders with the indubitable equivalent of their claims. The debtors’ arguments were based upon the use of the disjunctive “or” in Bankruptcy Code Section 1129(b)(2)(A) and found support in decisions issued by the Third and Fifth Circuit Courts of Appeals. In this regard, the debtors relied on two circuit court opinions for support: the Third Circuit’s opinion in In re Philadelphia Newspapers, 599 F.3d at 301 (3rd Cir. 2010) and the Fifth Circuit’s opinion in Pacific Lumber Co. v. Official Unsecured Creditors Comm. (In re Pacific Lumber Co.), 584 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2009).

Both the Third and Fifth Circuits had concluded that the statute’s use of the disjunctive “or” in describing the three alternative modes of cramdown meant that plan sales were not required to permit credit bidding so long as secured creditors received the indubitable equivalent of their claims. By contrast, the secured lenders in RadLAX argued that the proposed bid procedures were improper because any plan that contemplated a sale of their collateral must afford the secured lenders the right to credit bid to be confirmable. The secured lenders argued that the more specific subsection (ii) of Bankruptcy Code Section 1129(b)(2)(A) governed proposed plan sales of collateral over the objection of secured creditors and that this subsection required that dissenting secured creditors be given the right to credit bid.

The Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois and, thereafter, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, agreed with the secured lenders in RadLAX, finding that the debtors’ proposed plan was not confirmable. River Road Hotel Partners, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank (In re River Road Hotel Partners LLC), 651 F.3d 642 (7th Cir. 2011). In so holding, the Bankruptcy Court and the Seventh Circuit disagreed with the Third and Fifth Circuits’ respective conclusions that the plain language of Section 1129(b)(2)(A) unambiguously permits a plan sale of collateral free and clear of liens when secured creditors are prohibited from credit bidding. Rather, the Bankruptcy Court and the Seventh Circuit concluded that the better interpretation of the statute was that denying secured creditors the right to credit bid in a sale of their collateral based upon the “indubitable equivalence” prong under Section 1129(b)(2)(A)(iii) would render the more specific subsection 1129(b)(2)(A)(ii) (providing for the right to credit bid in a sale of collateral) superfluous. Accordingly, the Bankruptcy Court and the Seventh Circuit held that Section 1129(b)(2)(A) requires that a cramdown plan of reorganization that provides for the sale of secured creditors’ collateral free and clear of liens also must provide secured creditors the opportunity to credit bid their claims.

The Supreme Court granted certiorari with respect to the Seventh Circuit’s decision.

The Supreme Court’s Decision   

The Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion (other than Justice Kennedy, who took no part in the decision), affirmed the Seventh Circuit’s decision. The opinion turned on the Supreme Court’s textual analysis of Section 1129(b)(2)(A).

Applying the canon of statutory interpretation that specific provisions must be read to govern general provisions, the Supreme Court determined that the specific requirement that secured creditors be permitted to credit bid must be read to encompass all sales of collateral free and clear of liens in cramdown plans. The Court found that the debtors’ proposed reading of Section 1129(b)(2)(A) — under which subsection (iii) would permit that which was proscribed by subsection (ii) — was “hyperliteral.”3


The Supreme Court’s decision in RadLAX resolves a significant conflict among the circuit courts of appeal. In so doing, the Supreme Court has once again focused on the “plain language” of the Bankruptcy Code, and has confirmed secured creditors’ right to credit bid at plan sales of their collateral. Of course, the right to credit bid itself remains subject to certain exceptions, such as where a secured creditor’s lien is disputed or in circumstances involving fraud or collusion. It will be interesting to see whether the RadLAX ruling is extended to other situations involving “indubitable equivalent” constructs. Regardless, however, the Supreme Court’s decision in RadLAX has important implications for debtors, secured creditors, parties seeking to acquire distressed assets and other parties in interest.


1 In RadLAX, the Supreme Court noted that the Bankruptcy Court had found that there was no “cause” to deny the secured creditors the right to credit bid and that the debtors had not appealed this ruling. Thus, the Supreme Court did not consider whether cause existed to deny secured creditors the right to credit bid. However, courts have generally found such “cause” to exist in relatively limited circumstances, such as fraud, collusion or a failure to satisfy a senior or pari passu lien. 

2 Bankruptcy Code Section 363(k) grants secured creditors the right to credit bid “unless the court for cause order otherwise” when their collateral is proposed to be sold pursuant to Bankruptcy Code Section 363(b). Bankruptcy Code Section 363(b), in turn, provides inter alia that, subject to certain qualifications, a debtor may sell property outside of the ordinary course of business after notice and a hearing. 11 U.S.C. § 363(b), (k). 

3 While the Supreme Court allowed that the general/specific canon was not absolute and could be overcome by textual indications that pointed in the other direction, the Court found that the debtors had not demonstrated any such indications. The Supreme Court rejected the debtors’ argument that the Seventh Circuit conflated approval of bid procedures with plan confirmation and that the debtors should be permitted to pursue their auction, with the Bankruptcy Court to determine at confirmation whether the resulting plan provided secured lenders with the indubitable equivalent of their secured claims. In this regard, the Supreme Court held that no bid procedures like the ones proposed could satisfy the requirements of Bankruptcy Code Section 1129(b)(2)(A) and, thus, the distinction between bid procedures and plan confirmation was irrelevant in this context.

This memorandum is provided by Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP and its affiliates for educational and informational purposes only and is not intended and should not be construed as legal advice. This memorandum is considered advertising under applicable state laws.

Download PDF Version


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.

© Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom 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):

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.


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.