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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I like the concept. Seems like a good idea and really inexpensive to manage.

  2. I don't agree that this is an extreme case. There are more of these people than you realize - people that are vindictive and/or with psychological issues have clogged the system with baseless suits that are costly to the defendant and to taxpayers. Restricting repeat offenders from further abusing the system is not akin to restricting their freedon, but to protecting their victims, and the court system, from allowing them unfettered access. From the Supreme Court opinion "he has burdened the opposing party and the courts of this state at every level with massive, confusing, disorganized, defective, repetitive, and often meritless filings."

  3. So, if you cry wolf one too many times courts may "restrict" your ability to pursue legal action? Also, why is document production equated with wealth? Anyone can "produce probably tens of thousands of pages of filings" if they have a public library card. I understand this is an extreme case, but our Supreme Court really got this one wrong.

  4. He called our nation a nation of cowards because we didn't want to talk about race. That was a cheap shot coming from the top cop. The man who decides who gets the federal government indicts. Wow. Not a gentleman if that is the measure. More importantly, this insult delivered as we all understand, to white people-- without him or anybody needing to explain that is precisely what he meant-- but this is an insult to timid white persons who fear the government and don't want to say anything about race for fear of being accused a racist. With all the legal heat that can come down on somebody if they say something which can be construed by a prosecutor like Mr Holder as racist, is it any wonder white people-- that's who he meant obviously-- is there any surprise that white people don't want to talk about race? And as lawyers we have even less freedom lest our remarks be considered violations of the rules. Mr Holder also demonstrated his bias by publically visiting with the family of the young man who was killed by a police offering in the line of duty, which was a very strong indicator of bias agains the offer who is under investigation, and was a failure to lead properly by letting his investigators do their job without him predetermining the proper outcome. He also has potentially biased the jury pool. All in all this worsens race relations by feeding into the perception shared by whites as well as blacks that justice will not be impartial. I will say this much, I do not blame Obama for all of HOlder's missteps. Obama has done a lot of things to stay above the fray and try and be a leader for all Americans. Maybe he should have reigned Holder in some but Obama's got his hands full with other problelms. Oh did I mention HOlder is a bank crony who will probably get a job in a silkstocking law firm working for millions of bucks a year defending bankers whom he didn't have the integrity or courage to hold to account for their acts of fraud on the United States, other financial institutions, and the people. His tenure will be regarded by history as a failure of leadership at one of the most important jobs in our nation. Finally and most importantly besides him insulting the public and letting off the big financial cheats, he has been at the forefront of over-prosecuting the secrecy laws to punish whistleblowers and chill free speech. What has Holder done to vindicate the rights of privacy of the American public against the illegal snooping of the NSA? He could have charged NSA personnel with violations of law for their warrantless wiretapping which has been done millions of times and instead he did not persecute a single soul. That is a defalcation of historical proportions and it signals to the public that the government DOJ under him was not willing to do a damn thing to protect the public against the rapid growth of the illegal surveillance state. Who else could have done this? Nobody. And for that omission Obama deserves the blame too. Here were are sliding into a police state and Eric Holder made it go all the faster.

  5. JOE CLAYPOOL candidate for Superior Court in Harrison County - Indiana This candidate is misleading voters to think he is a Judge by putting Elect Judge Joe Claypool on his campaign literature. paragraphs 2 and 9 below clearly indicate this injustice to voting public to gain employment. What can we do? Indiana Code - Section 35-43-5-3: Deception (a) A person who: (1) being an officer, manager, or other person participating in the direction of a credit institution, knowingly or intentionally receives or permits the receipt of a deposit or other investment, knowing that the institution is insolvent; (2) knowingly or intentionally makes a false or misleading written statement with intent to obtain property, employment, or an educational opportunity; (3) misapplies entrusted property, property of a governmental entity, or property of a credit institution in a manner that the person knows is unlawful or that the person knows involves substantial risk of loss or detriment to either the owner of the property or to a person for whose benefit the property was entrusted; (4) knowingly or intentionally, in the regular course of business, either: (A) uses or possesses for use a false weight or measure or other device for falsely determining or recording the quality or quantity of any commodity; or (B) sells, offers, or displays for sale or delivers less than the represented quality or quantity of any commodity; (5) with intent to defraud another person furnishing electricity, gas, water, telecommunication, or any other utility service, avoids a lawful charge for that service by scheme or device or by tampering with facilities or equipment of the person furnishing the service; (6) with intent to defraud, misrepresents the identity of the person or another person or the identity or quality of property; (7) with intent to defraud an owner of a coin machine, deposits a slug in that machine; (8) with intent to enable the person or another person to deposit a slug in a coin machine, makes, possesses, or disposes of a slug; (9) disseminates to the public an advertisement that the person knows is false, misleading, or deceptive, with intent to promote the purchase or sale of property or the acceptance of employment;

ADVERTISEMENT