Radlax Gateway Hotel, et al., v. Amalgamated Bank (11-166)
The Supreme Court on May 29, 2012, affirmed the Seventh Circuit's holding that debtors may not obtain confirmation of a chapter 11 bankruptcy “cramdown” plan that proposes to sell substantially all of the debtors’ property at an auction, free and clear of the Bank’s lien, using the sale proceeds to repay the Bank, but that does not permit the Bank to credit-bid at the sale. To read the decision, please click here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-166.pdf
Instant Analysis of Oral Argument in the RadLAX case (4/24/2012):
Issue: The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on April 23 in the case of Radlax Gateway Hotel, et al., v. Amalgamated Bank (11-166). At issue in the case was whether a debtor may pursue a chapter 11 plan that proposes to sell assets free of liens without allowing the secured creditor to credit bid, but instead providing it with the indubitable equivalent of its claim under Section 1129(b)(2)(A)(iii) of the Bankruptcy Code.
Click here to view a transcript of the oral arguments. A panel of experts gathered on April 24 to discuss the oral arguments made before the Supreme Court in the RadLAX case.
Experts on the program included:
David Neff of Perkins Coie LLP (Chicago), the counsel of record for petitioner RadLAX Gateway Hotel LLC and participant in the argument. Jason S. Brookner of Andrews Kurth LLP (New York), whose article was cited in the brief for the respondent. Prof. Charles Tabb, the Alice Curtis Campbell Professor of Law at the University of Illinois College of Law, who recently published a paper titled "Credit Bidding, Security, and the Obsolescence of Chapter 11". The moderator for the session was ABI Resident Scholar Prof. David Epstein. For additional questions or requests regarding the teleconference or to speak with one of ABI’s expert resources, please contact ABI Public Affairs Manager John Hartgen at 703-894-5935 or email@example.com.
Full Audio of the Oral Argument (via the Oyez Project at the Chicago-Kent School of Law): http://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2011/2011_11_166#argument