Bank of Montreal v. Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors
420 F.3d 559, 2005 WL 1949548 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a Chapter 11 bankruptcy, the appropriate "cramdown" interest rate is the market rate if an efficient market exists for the loan. If no such market exists, courts should employ the formula approach from Till v. SCS Credit Corp., which starts with a prime rate and adjusts for risk.
Facts:
- American HomePatient, Inc. (American) is a publicly-held company providing home healthcare services.
- Between 1994 and 1998, American borrowed a significant amount of money from a group of 24 lenders to expand its operations.
- The total principal balance owed to the lenders was approximately $278 to $290 million.
- In July 2002, American voluntarily filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection because it could not meet its debt obligations.
- American proposed a reorganization plan, but the lenders rejected it, disagreeing with the proposed interest rate for their secured claim and the valuation of their collateral.
Procedural Posture:
- American HomePatient, Inc. filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy relief in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court.
- A group of secured lenders objected to American's proposed Second Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization.
- The bankruptcy court held a hearing and confirmed the plan over the lenders' objections pursuant to the Bankruptcy Code's 'cramdown' provisions, setting the interest rate at 6.785% and collateral value at $250 million.
- The lenders, as appellants, appealed the bankruptcy court's confirmation order to the U.S. District Court.
- The lenders' requests for a stay of the confirmation order were denied by both the bankruptcy court and the district court.
- American, as appellee, filed a motion to dismiss the appeal in the district court on grounds of equitable mootness.
- The district court denied American's motion to dismiss but affirmed the bankruptcy court's decision on the merits.
- The lenders appealed the district court's affirmance to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, and American cross-appealed the denial of its motion to dismiss.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a bankruptcy court err in determining a Chapter 11 cramdown interest rate by using a "coerced loan" analysis to find the market rate, rather than the formula approach suggested by the Supreme Court's plurality opinion in Till v. SCS Credit Corp.?
Opinions:
Majority - Gilman, Circuit Judge
No, a bankruptcy court does not err by using a coerced loan analysis to determine a market-based cramdown interest rate in a Chapter 11 case. The Supreme Court's decision in Till v. SCS Credit Corp., while endorsing a formula approach for Chapter 13 cases, suggested in Footnote 14 that a market-rate analysis is appropriate for Chapter 11 cases where an efficient market exists. This court adopts a nuanced approach: where an efficient market exists, the market rate should be applied; where one does not, the Till formula approach should be used. Here, although the bankruptcy court used the "coerced loan theory" rubric, its analysis was effectively an attempt to find the rate an efficient market would produce for the existing senior debt, not a hypothetical new loan. The court found the 6.785% rate was a reasonable market rate and that the lenders' proposed 12.16% rate constituted an impermissible "windfall," which Till cautioned against.
Analysis:
This decision establishes key precedent in the Sixth Circuit for applying the Supreme Court's Till plurality opinion to Chapter 11 bankruptcies. It creates a two-tiered approach, prioritizing a market-rate analysis where an 'efficient market' for the debt can be found, and resorting to the Till formula approach only when no such market exists. This provides bankruptcy courts with more flexibility than a rigid application of the Till formula would allow, but it also introduces ambiguity in determining when an 'efficient market' actually exists for a debtor in possession.
