Daily Development for
Wednesday, January 7, 1998
by: Patrick A. Randolph, Jr.
Professor of Law
UMKC School of Law
The Reporter for today's DD is Jim Stillman of the L.A. office of Murphy, Weir & Butler.
BANKRUPTCY; REORGANIZATION; CONFIRMATION; "NEW VALUE;" CLASSIFICATION AND DISCRIMINATION: The"new value" corollary to the absolute priority rule has survived the enactment of the Bankruptcy Code.
In re 203 N. LaSalle Street Partnership, 126 F.3d 955 (7th Cir. 1997).
The secured creditor's $93 million claim was bifurcated under Section 506(a) into a secured claim of about $54 million and an unsecured claim of about $39 million, as to which the creditor declined the 1111(b) election. In a divided opinion, the Seventh Circuit held that (a) $4.1 million to be contributed by the general partners under the plan was sufficiently significant and proportionate to the size of the case to satisfy the "new value" corollary, (b) the creditor's huge unsecured deficiency claim could be separately classified from the $ 90,000 in general unsecured claims in the case, so that (c) the deficiency claim could be given a "hope certificate" payable upon the successful sale or refinancing of the property, if ever, while the remaining unsecured claims were paid off in full, thus (d) motivating the small general unsecured class to carry a "cramdown" confirmation by voting to accept the plan (see section 1129(a)(10)), and (e) the plan was not proposed in "bad faith," even though the debtor's general partners admitted that the case had been filed for the primary (if not exclusvie) purpose of staving off the recognition of enormous phantom gain.
Reporter's Comment: Can you imagine how shocked the bank's law firm must have been by this opinion? The secured creditor gambled almost half its loan, declined the 1111(b) election in a rising real estate market, and paid litigation expenses over two years that must have topped half a million dollars, on a bet that it could tank the debtor's plan on principle, rather than simply block confirmation by buying-out a controlling interest in the tiny unsecured class in this case, which would have cost $45,000 or less. The Seventh Circuit's opinion is weakest in its conclusion that the plan's discrimination between the deficiency class and the general unsecured class was not "unfair;" the plan's very gross discrimination was justified, the Court of Appeals held, since the deficiency claim existed only by leave of statute (per section 1111(a)) and because the deficiency class got at least what it would get in Chapter 7.
Items in the Daily Development section generally are extracted from the Quarterly Report on Developments in Real Estate Law, published by the ABA Section on Real Property, Probate & Trust Law. Subscriptions to the Quarterly Report are available to Section members only. The cost is nominal. For the last six years, these Reports have been collated, updated, indexed and bound into an Annual Survey of Developments in Real Estate Law, volumes 1-6, published by the ABA Press. The Annual Survey volumes are available for sale to the public. For the Report or the Survey, contact Stacy Walter at the ABA. (312) 988 5260 or email@example.com
Items reported here and in the ABA publications are for general information purposes only and should not be relied upon in the course of representation or in the forming of decisions in legal matters. The same is true of all commentary provided by contributors to the DIRT list. Accuracy of data and opinions expressed are the sole responsibility of the DIRT editor and are in no sense the publication of the ABA. Parties posting messages to DIRT are posting to a source that is readily accessible by members of the general public, and should take that fact into account in evaluating confidentiality issues.