ILNews

7th Circuit orders proposed plan of reorganization open to competitive bidding

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a Southern District Bankruptcy judge Thursday, finding the judge incorrectly ruled that competition was unnecessary in a plan of reorganization involving a shopping center.

George Broadbent owns 98 percent direct equity of Castleton Plaza, the debtor, and the other 2 percent indirectly. EL-SNPR is Castleton Plaza’s only secured lender. When Castleton Plaza’s note matured with EL-SNPR, it did not pay and instead commenced bankruptcy. About a year later it proposed a plan of reorganization, under which $300,000 of EL-SNPR’s $10 million secured debt would be paid now with the balance written down to around $8.2 million and treated as unsecured. One-hundred percent of equity in the reorganized Castleton Plaza would go to Mary Clare Broadbent, George’s wife, who would invest $375,000.

George Broadbent is CEO of the Broadbent Company Inc., in which Mary Clare Broadbent owns all of the equity, and he receives a salary from the company. Broadbent and Castleton Plaza would keep their management contract.

EL-SNPR, thinking Castleton Plaza’s assets have been undervalued, asked the bankruptcy judge to condition Mary Clare Broadbent’s plan acceptance on her making the highest bid in open competition. Judge Basil Lorch III held that competition is unnecessary and confirmed the plan as proposed.

“Competition helps prevent the funneling of value from lenders to insiders, no matter who proposes the plan or when. An impaired lender who objects to any plan that leaves insiders holding equity is entitled to the benefit of competition,” Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote. “If, as Castleton and the Broadbents insist, their plan offers creditors the best deal, then they will prevail in the auction. But if, as EL-SNPR believes, the bankruptcy judge has underestimated the value of Castleton’s real estate, wiped out too much of the secured claim, and set the remaining loan’s terms at below-market rates, then someone will pay more than $375,000 (perhaps a lot more) for the equity in the reorganized firm.”

The case, In the matter of: Castleton Plaza LP; Appeal of: El-SNPR Notes Holdings LLC, 12-2639, is remanded with directions to open the proposed plan of reorganization to competitive bidding.

 

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. Contact Lea Shelemey attorney in porter county Indiana. She just helped us win our case...she is awesome...

  2. We won!!!! It was a long expensive battle but we did it. I just wanted people to know it is possible. And if someone can point me I. The right direction to help change the way the courts look as grandparents as only grandparents. The courts assume the parent does what is in the best interest of the child...and the court is wrong. A lot of the time it is spite and vindictiveness that separates grandparents and grandchildren. It should not have been this long and hard and expensive...Something needs to change...

  3. Typo on # of Indiana counties

  4. The Supreme Court is very proud that they are Giving a billion dollar public company from Texas who owns Odyssey a statewide monopoly which consultants have said is not unnecessary but worse they have already cost Hoosiers well over $100 MILLION, costing tens of millions every year and Odyssey is still not connected statewide which is in violation of state law. The Supreme Court is using taxpayer money and Odyssey to compete against a Hoosier company who has the only system in Indiana that is connected statewide and still has 40 of the 82 counties despite the massive spending and unnecessary attacks

  5. Here's a recent resource regarding steps that should be taken for removal from the IN sex offender registry. I haven't found anything as comprehensive as of yet. Hopefully this is helpful - http://www.chjrlaw.com/removal-indiana-sex-offender-registry/

ADVERTISEMENT