United States: Cramdown Interest Rates And Secured Creditors In Chapter 11: The Waters Are Still Muddy

Recently, the Fifth Circuit decided a case regarding the appropriate interest rate to be charged when a secured creditor's claim is "crammed down," pursuant to section 1129(b)(2)(A) of the United States Bankruptcy Code (Code), 11 U.S.C. §§ 101-1532. Unfortunately, the decision does little to clarify the confusion precipitated by the Supreme Court's 2004 decision of Till v. SCS Credit Corp., 541 U.S. 465 (2004), and perhaps even adds to it.

In Wells Fargo Bank N.A. v. Texas Grand Prairie Hotel Realty, L.L.C., (In re Texas Grand Prairie Hotel Realty, L.L.C., No. 11-11109, 2013 WL 776317 (5th Cir. Mar. 1, 2013)), the debtor borrowed $49 million from Wells Fargo's predecessor in interest in 2007, secured by various hotel properties and related assets. In 2009, the debtor was unable to pay Wells Fargo's note when it became due and filed a petition under Chapter 11. The debtor subsequently filed a plan of reorganization, which Wells Fargo rejected, valuing Wells Fargo's secured claim at just over $39 million. The debtor sought to cram down Wells Fargo's secured under section 1129(b), proposing to pay the secured loan over ten years with interest accruing at 5% per annum (1.75% above the prime rate). Wells Fargo argued that the loan should bear interest at 8.8% per annum. Both parties agreed that the "primeplus" formula endorsed by Till should apply, but hotly disputed what that formula required. The bankruptcy court adopted the debtor's expert's analysis and confirmed the plan. Wells Fargo appealed to the district court, which affirmed, and Wells Fargo appealed to the Fifth Circuit.

On appeal, the Fifth Circuit began by denying the debtor's motion for dismissal of the appeal on the grounds that it was equitably moot. Although the plan had been consummated and the debtor had made nearly $8 million of post-plan distributions, the Court was not persuaded that the issue before it—paying the secured creditor additional interest—would jeopardize the reorganization, especially given the undisputed improvement in the debtor's revenues and cash position since the filing of the petition, which improvement had continued post-confirmation.

The court then turned to the issue of what section 1129(b) of the Code required. Among other things, section 1129(b) provides that for a plan to be confirmed over the objection of a secured creditor, the creditor must receive deferred payments of a value at least equal to the allowed amount of the secured claim as of the effective date of the plan. Stated differently, the stream of payments must have a present value (applying the appropriate cramdown interest rate) equal to the secured creditor's claim as of the effective date. The issue is how the appropriate interest rate should be determined.

Wells Fargo argued that the controlling authority was the Till prime-plus formula. This formula required the application of the prime rate of interest (the rate charged by banks to creditworthy borrowers), as adjusted to account for the risk of default, the quality of the debtor's management, the commitment of the debtor's owners, nature and the quality of the collateral, and the duration and feasibility of the plan. The Fifth Circuit noted that Till was a Chapter 13 case involving auto financing, and the Till plurality's holding that the prime-plus formula was appropriate was motivated by the method's simplicity and objectivity. Texas Grand Prairie Hotel 2013 WL 776317 at *8. The prime-plus method avoided the protracted litigation and evidentiary burdens engendered by use of the coerced loan, presumptive contract rate and cost of funds approaches. Id.

Although the Supreme Court suggested that the prime-plus formula should also apply in Chapter 11, the Fifth Circuit noted this suggestion was dicta in a splintered plurality opinion and was not controlling precedent. Id. at *7. In addition, the Fifth Circuit pointed out that footnote 14 of the Till plurality opinion indicated that where efficient markets exist for exit financing in Chapter 11, a market rate approach might be more suitable for determining the appropriate cramdown interest rate. Id. at *9. The Fifth Circuit noted that many courts, including the Sixth Circuit in In re American HomePatient, Inc., 420 F.3d 559 (6th Cir. 2005), have found footnote 14 persuasive and have concluded that the market rate approach should be used in Chapter 11 cramdowns where an efficient market for exit financing exists. Texas Grand Prairie Hotel, 2013 WL, at *8.

However, the Fifth Circuit also noted that after Till, most courts addressing cramdown in the Chapter 11 context have found that "efficient markets" did not exist, because there is rarely a market for a single loan with a term, size and collateral comparable to the forced loan contemplated under the respective cramdown plan. These courts have consequently defaulted to the prime-plus formula and applied the Till plurality's suggested risk adjustment range of 1% to 3% over prime. Id. at*6. The Fifth Circuit noted that these decisions did so even in the face of Justice Scalia's vigorous dissent in Till, which argued that the prime-plus formula grossly undercompensated secured creditors for the risk they faced, not by a couple of per cent, but by an order of magnitude. The prime-plus formula, said Scalia, resulted little more "than a smallish number picked out of a hat." Id. at *8 (citing the dissent in Till).

The Fifth Circuit then turned to the competing approaches. The debtor's expert began with the prevailing prime rate of 3.25%. He then evaluated the Till factors concluding that the debtor's hotel properties were well maintained and excellently managed, and that the debtor's owners were committed to the business. The expert noted that the debtor's revenues exceeded projections and that Wells Fargo's collateral was stable or appreciating. The expert opined that the debtor's cramdown plan would be tight, but feasible, and therefore concluded that a risk adjustment of 1.75%, which was within the 1% to 3% risk adjustment range of Till, was reasonable. Consequently, the cramdown interest rate of 5% was appropriate. Id. at *6.

Wells Fargo criticized this conclusion, pointing out that on the date of plan confirmation the market was charging rates in excess of 5% for smaller, over-collateralized loans to comparable hotel owners. Id. at*8. The Wells Fargo expert instead argued that a "market influenced" analysis within the context of the prime-plus formula was the more appropriate approach. Starting with the same prime rate of 3.25%, the Wells Fargo expert applied a weighted average of the interest rates the market would charge for multi-tiered exit financing comprised of senior secured debt (6.25%), mezzanine debt (11%) and equity (22%). This calculation yielded a blended rate of 9.3%, which the expert adjusted downward by 1.5% for the favorable financial circumstances of the estate, and upward 1% for the plan's tight feasibility, yielding a cramdown rate of 8.8%. Id. at *7.

In reviewing the bankruptcy court's acceptance of the debtor's approach and the rejection of the Wells Fargo approach, the Fifth Circuit agreed with Wells Fargo that no willing lender would have extended credit on the terms it was forced to accept under the cramdown plan. However, said the court, this was the natural consequence of the prime-plus method, which sacrifices market realities in favor of simple and feasible bankruptcy reorganizations. Id. at *8. The Till plurality approach and not Justice Scalia's dissent, said the court, has become the default rule in Chapter 11 bankruptcies. Id. Even the Sixth Circuit in HomePatient, which recognized the efficient market analysis, rejected the argument that the type of tiered financing proposed by Wells Fargo establishes the type of efficient markets justifying a market approach. Texas Grand Prairie Hotel, 2013 WL, at *8 n. 64. Finding that the bankruptcy court's decision to approve the debtor's cramdown rate of 5% was consistent with Till and endorsed by the vast majority of bankruptcy courts, and also finding that the decision was not clearly erroneous, the Fifth Circuit affirmed. However, in conclusion, the court said that it was not deciding that the prime-plus formula is the only, or even the optimal, method for calculating the Chapter 11 cramdown rate. Id. at *9. However, the court left unstated what method might be considered "optimal."

The Texas Grand Prairie Hotel decision is a puzzle. The court recognizes that Till, as a Chapter 13 case, is not controlling precedent in the Chapter 11 context. The court also notes that the prime-plus method of calculating cramdown interest and its 1% to 3% risk adjustment range is not the only, or even optimal, method to apply. Recognizing that no lender would make a loan to the debtor on the terms of the forced loan under the plan, the court finds that the prime-plus method sacrifices market realities in favor of simple and feasible bankruptcy reorganizations. The court also seems to approve of Justice Scalia's observation in Till that the prime-plus adjustment results in only "a smallish number picked out of a hat," Id. at *8, and that secured creditors to whom it is applied are undercompensated not by a couple percent but by "an order of magnitude." Id. at *6.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the court observes that the Till plurality's prime-plus formula approach has become the default rule in Chapter 11 bankruptcies applied by a vast majority of bankruptcy courts. Seemingly based upon that, and perhaps because Wells Fargo argued that Till was controlling, the Fifth Circuit affirms the application of the Till prime-plus approach. In doing so, the court opted for simplicity and ease of application as opposed to market realities. The court is silent about the fact that lenders most often use the prime rate as a floating rate that changes as the market changes, rather than a rate that is fixed for the duration of a plan, in this case ten years.

Given the recent historically low prime rates, lenders should be on notice that one of the consequences of a debtor's resort to Chapter 11 is the risk arising under Till that it will be forced into a lending relationship for an extended period of time on terms that bear no relationship to what the market would dictate. In spite of these market realities, this seems to tilt the scales of equity heavily in favor of debtors to the disadvantage of secured lenders. Although Texas Grand Prairie Hotel seems to recognize this, it purposely avoids the opportunity to change it.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Peter C. Blain
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Shearman & Sterling LLP
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Shearman & Sterling LLP
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions