Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Supreme Court Disappoints Secured Lenders
The U.S. Supreme Court's recent Till decision on the proper cramdown interest rate will disappoint secured lenders. Till v. SCC Credit Corp., 124 S. Ct. 1951 (2004). As we show below, Till should be limited to its narrow fact pattern, but is still bad news for lenders. They now will be forced to fight an uphill battle to prove that a higher risk premium should be added to the prime rate applicable to their crammed down secured claim. In Till, the plurality accepted a risk adjustment premium in the range of 1% to 3% (Justice Thomas, concurring, could accept no premium at all). Commercial lenders will thus have to overcome Till by showing that they are entitled to a truly “market” interest rate.
Holding
A plurality (Justice Stevens, joined by Justices Breyer, Ginsburg and Souter) held on May 17, 2004, that the prime-plus, or formula, approach, requiring adjustment of the prime national interest rate for the risk of the borrower's nonpayment, was the best method for fixing the cramdown interest rate on a secured loan. Id. at 1968. (“Cramdown” refers to the alternative plan confirmation standard “by which a plan may be confirmed notwithstanding the failure of an impaired class to accept the plan.” See 124 Cong. Rec. H 11,103 (Sept. 28,1978); S 17,420 (Oct. 6, 1978) discussing Code section 1129(b).) Previously, only the Second Circuit had endorsed the formula approach. See, e.g., GMAC v. Valenti (In re Valenti), 105 F.3d 55, 64 (2d Cir. 1997) (imposing formula approach at treasury security rate, because “it is easy to apply, it is objective, and it will lead to uniform results”); abrogated on other grounds by Assoc. Commercial Corp. v. Rash, 520 U.S. 953 (1997), 117 S. Ct. 1879, 138 L. Ed. 2d 148; Key Bank Nat'l Assoc. v. Milham (In re Milham), 141 F.3d 420, 424 (2d Cir. 1998) (formula rate applied in cramdown for oversecured creditor). Justice Thomas concurred in Till, reasoning that the 9.5% cramdown interest rate adequately compensated the lender for the present value of its claim, and that the Bankruptcy Code did not require secured creditors to be compensated for the risk of nonpayment. Id. at 1965.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?