Thaler Law Firm PLLC
  • Home
  • About the Firm
  • Firm News
  • Professionals
    • Andrew M. Thaler
  • Practice Areas
    • Bankruptcy >
      • Considering Bankruptcy
    • Commercial Litigation
    • Creditors' Rights
    • Mediation
    • Trustee Representation
  • Testimonials
  • Contact
    • Potential Debtor
    • Potential Creditor
  • Blog

What do you mean my lien doesn't pass through in a confirmed Chapter 11?

1/22/2016

0 Comments

 
Author: Spiros Avramidis

The Second Circuit held that a confirmed Chapter 11 plan can extinguish a lien if "(1) the text of the plan does not preserve the lien; (2) the plan is confirmed; (3) the property subject to the lien is 'dealt with' by the terms of the plan; and (4) the lienholder participated in the bankruptcy proceedings." In re Northern New England Telephone Operations LLC, 795 F.3d 343, 345 (2d Cir. 2015).         

To some, this holding may seem contrary to the general rule that "liens pass through bankruptcy unaffected." Dewsnup v. Timm,  502 U.S. 410, 417 (1992). However, the Court found a caveat to this general rule in 11 U.S.C.  § 1141(c), which states: "[e]xcept as provided in subsections (d)(2) and (d)(3) of this section and except as otherwise provided in the plan or in the order confirming the plan, after confirmation of a plan, the property dealt with by the plan is free and clear of all claims and interests of creditors, equity security holders, and of general partners in the debtor."
​First, the Court found that "interests of creditors" includes liens. Northern, 795 F.3d at 346. Finding that interest of creditors includes liens, the Court held that such interest would be extinguished if the four requirements of § 1141(c) were met: 1) neither the plan nor the Order confirming the plan preserves the lien, 2) confirmation of the plan, 3) the property subject to the lien is "dealt with" in the plan, and 4) the secured creditor participated in the Chapter 11. Id. at 346-48 . Interestingly, the fourth requirement of participation is not explicitly stated in § 1141(c). The Court found, however, that participation is implied in the third requirement that property is "dealt with," reasoning that plan cannot properly "deal with" property if the secured creditor did not participate. Id. at 348. 

In Northern, the Court found and the parties agreed that the first two elements were clearly satisfied. For the third requirement, the Court found that the following language was sufficient to "deal with" the property:
The lienholder argued that this language did not "sufficiently deal with the property subject to the lien." The Court rejected this argument, holding that the plan specifically referenced "all property," which categorically includes the property subject to the lien.  

​For the fourth and last requirement, the Court found that the lienholder sufficiently participated. The Debtors owned certain real property in the City of Concord, and the City had a single lien on the property to secure payment of tax bills. In October 2009, the Debtors filed a Chapter 11 petition. During the course of the bankruptcy, the City filed two proofs of claim for Q1 and Q2 of 2009, which were billed pre-petition and ultimately deemed allowed claims by the Court (after some reduction); the City failed to file proof of claims for Q3 and Q4. In 2013, two years after the Debtors' Chapter 11 plan was confirmed, the City moved the bankruptcy court to allow the City to file claims for the 2009 Q3 and Q4 tax bills and order the Debtors to pay those claims. The bankruptcy court denied the City's motion, holding that the Plan provided that the Debtors' property would be free and clear of creditors' interests and the district court affirmed. The Second Circuit ultimately found that by filing two proof of claims, the City sufficiently participated in the Chapter 11.

​
Based on the facts of Northern, it would seem that the requirement of "participation" has a very low threshold. Merely filing two proofs of claims seems to be sufficient participation.

This case raises a number of interesting issues: (1) exactly how low is the threshold for a Court to determine that a secured creditor "participated" in the Chapter 11? (2) although usually imprudent, is it better for a secured creditor to ignore a Chapter 11 so that its lien may be preserved? (3) should a secured creditor, assuming it's not getting paid in full, object to any Chapter 11 that doesn't explicitly preserve the secured creditor's lien? I guess we'll have to see how the lower Court's tackle these issues.
As of the Effective Date, all property of FairPoint and Reorganized FairPoint shall be free and clear of all Claims, Liens and interests, except as specifically provided in the Plan, the Confirmation Order, or the New Credit Agreement.
0 Comments



Leave a Reply.

    Authors

    This blog is maintained by:
    Andrew M. Thaler

    View my profile on LinkedIn
    Spiros Avramidis
    View my profile on LinkedIn

    Categories

    All
    Bankruptcy Cases
    Bankruptcy Filings
    Bankruptcy General
    Bankruptcy/Matrimonial
    Bankruptcy/Personal Injury
    Bankruptcy/Real Estate

    Archives

    November 2021
    June 2021
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    September 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    October 2018
    September 2018
    July 2018
    May 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    October 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    July 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014

    RSS Feed


Thaler Law Firm PLLC
675 Old Country Road
Westbury, New York 11590
Phone: (516) 279-6700 | Fax: (516) 279-6722

Disclaimer
Thaler Law Firm provides the information and materials on its website and blog for informational purposes only. The information is general in nature and does not constitute legal advice.
Further, the use of this information, and the sending or receipt of such information and materials, does not create an attorney-client relationship between us. Prior results do not guarantee a future or similar outcome.

The application and impact of laws can vary widely based on the specific facts involved. Accordingly, the information is provided with the understanding that the authors are not herein engaged in rendering legal, accounting, tax,
or other professional advice and services. As such, it should not be used as a substitute for consultation with professional accounting, tax, legal or other advisers.

Materials and information in this presentation is proprietary in nature belonging to Thaler Law Firm and may only be reproduced in its entirety (without modification) for the individual reader’s personal or educational use and must include
this notice of our proprietary interest and the prohibition of reproduction

TLF is considered a debt relief agency.
TLF helps people file for bankruptcy relief under the Bankruptcy Code.
Attorney Advertising | Copyright © 2015 Thaler Law Firm PLLC | All rights reserved
Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.