ILNews

Bankruptcy ruling locks out insiders

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A recent bankruptcy appeal tossing an Indianapolis shopping center’s reorganization plan further establishes that the control of equity in Chapter 11 cases will be subject to competitive bidding and that insiders might be out of luck.

“This is a case that will be talked about by bankruptcy lawyers for a long time,” said Alan K. Mills, a Barnes & Thornburg LLP partner who successfully represented the chief creditor before the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in In the matter of: Castleton Plaza LP; Appeal of: EL-SNPR Notes Holdings LLC, 12-2639.
 

plaza-15col.jpg Castleton Plaza in Indianapolis is at the center of a bankruptcy case that attorneys say will have broad implications for Chapter 11 reorganizations. (IL Photo/ Perry Reichanadter)

On Feb. 14, the 7th Circuit reversed a Southern District of Indiana bankruptcy court that had approved a Chapter 11 reorganization plan in which Castleton Plaza owner George Broadbent was to transfer equity in the property to his wife Mary Clare Broadbent, who was to invest $375,000 in new equity. Under the plan, Castleton Plaza secured lender EL-SNPR would be paid $300,000 on secured debt of $10 million, and the remainder would be written down to about $8.2 million of unsecured debt.

“Not only did the equity holder decide who it was going to be sold to, he also decided what it was going to be sold for,” Mills said of the original reorganization plan. “This has been sort of a nationwide maneuver by debtors’ lawyers in single-asset bankruptcy,” he said of reorganizations relying on infusion of new equity from insiders as 11 U.S.C. §101(31) defines that term.


mills_alan.jpg Mills

Mills said the 7th Circuit’s reversal was a vindication of the absolute priority rule that generally holds that a court will not confirm a plan in which dissenting creditors are not paid in full or given an opportunity to market test the value of equity.

“Competition is essential whenever a plan of reorganization leaves an objecting creditor unpaid yet distributes an equity interest to an insider,” 7th Circuit Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote in remanding Castleton Plaza to the bankruptcy court to open the reorganization plan to competitive bidding.


deignan-paul-mug.jpg Deignan

Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP partner Paul T. Deignan represented the Broadbent Company and Castleton Plaza. He said he and his clients are reviewing the ruling and might seek an appeal.

“It is of such a serious nature that it is getting serious attention,” Deignan said. “People including myself and other bankruptcy attorneys are going to have to think about this for a while. It’s a pretty dramatic change for those of us who represent family-owned businesses.”

Deignan said there is an exception or corollary to the absolute priority rule when substantial new equity is brought to the table, as was the case in Castleton Plaza. Bankruptcy courts have long recognized that new capital from insiders can be a key to a company’s recovery, he said.

“Part of the reason this is a very significant decision is, in our part of the country at least – Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin in the 7th Circuit – many of the Chapter 11 reorganizations are of small businesses and family-owned businesses,” Deignan said. If creditors now can require an auction for new equity ownership in bankruptcy, “a consequence of that will be not a lot of incentive for family members to step up who might be able to save the family business,” he added.


georgakopulos-nicholas-mug Georgakopoulos

But Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law professor Nicholas Georgakopoulos said the 7th Circuit decided correctly based on the U.S. Supreme Court precedent in Bank of America National Trust & Savings Association v. 203 North LaSalle Street Partnership, 526 U.S. 434 (1999). That ruling held that pre-bankruptcy equity holders may not contribute new capital on an exclusive basis over the objection of impaired creditors.

“I think the Supreme Court decision in 203 North LaSalle should be seen as trying to protect lenders,” said Georgakopoulos, whose article, “New Value, Fresh Start,” was cited in the high court’s opinion. “And if the 7th Circuit were to uphold the lower court’s opinion in Castleton, they would have created a huge loophole which would allow self-dealing and would allow essentially bankruptcies of closely held corporations to avoid the requirement of 203 North LaSalle.”

Mills said the 7th Circuit decision in Castleton Plaza appears to be the first Circuit-level ruling to apply the LaSalle holding. He said the opinion goes a long way toward resolving a split among bankruptcy courts regarding whether equity owners can avoid the absolute priority rule through transfers to insiders.

He believes the ruling may have a wider impact, even if insiders are not involved in a reorganization plan. “Whenever you have an equity piece that is going to be sold, I think many bankruptcy courts after this will see if there’s a market for it to determine its true value.”

Bose McKinney & Evans LLP partner James E. Carlberg chairs the Bankruptcy and Creditors’ Rights Section of the Indiana State Bar Association. He also believes the ruling will have profound ramifications for Chapter 11 reorganizations.

“What the court really said was no one knows for sure what the right to make a contribution to become the new equity owner is worth,” Carlberg said. “And in all cases that has to be put up, in essence, for bids and the creditor allowed to bid for it as well.

“What the court is saying is we should put that up for auction to safeguard against it being undervalued at the outset.”

Carlberg explained that many bankruptcies don’t involve assets earning sufficient income to service debts. That doesn’t appear to be the case with Castleton Plaza, which boasts leases with at least 20 retail tenants including such anchor stores as Sam Ash, West Marine, Dollar Tree and Formosa Seafood Buffet.

Easterbrook’s ruling made clear that when a Chapter 11 bankruptcy creditor doesn’t buy into a reorganization plan involving insiders, that plan won’t pass muster.

“This appeal presents the question whether an equity investor can evade the competitive process by arranging for the new value to be contributed by (and the new equity to go to) an ‘insider,’” Easterbrook wrote. “The bankruptcy judge answered yes; our answer is no.”•

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Im very happy for you, getting ready to go down that dirt road myself, and im praying for the same outcome, because it IS sometimes in the childs best interest to have visitation with grandparents. Thanks for sharing, needed to hear some positive posts for once.

  2. Been there 4 months with 1 paycheck what can i do

  3. our hoa has not communicated any thing that takes place in their "executive meetings" not executive session. They make decisions in these meetings, do not have an agenda, do not notify association memebers and do not keep general meetings minutes. They do not communicate info of any kind to the member, except annual meeting, nobody attends or votes because they think the board is self serving. They keep a deposit fee from club house rental for inspection after someone uses it, there is no inspection I know becausee I rented it, they did not disclose to members that board memebers would be keeping this money, I know it is only 10 dollars but still it is not their money, they hire from within the board for paid positions, no advertising and no request for bids from anyone else, I atteended last annual meeting, went into executive session to elect officers in that session the president brought up the motion to give the secretary a raise of course they all agreed they hired her in, then the minutes stated that a diffeerent board member motioned to give this raise. This board is very clickish and has done things anyway they pleased for over 5 years, what recourse to members have to make changes in the boards conduct

  4. Where may I find an attorney working Pro Bono? Many issues with divorce, my Disability, distribution of IRA's, property, money's and pressured into agreement by my attorney. Leaving me far less than 5% of all after 15 years of marriage. No money to appeal, disabled living on disability income. Attorney's decision brought forward to judge, no evidence ever to finalize divorce. Just 2 weeks ago. Please help.

  5. For the record no one could answer the equal protection / substantive due process challenge I issued in the first post below. The lawless and accountable only to power bureaucrats never did either. All who interface with the Indiana law examiners or JLAP be warned.

ADVERTISEMENT