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. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT