Register | Lost your password?

CaseBriefs

In re Craddock-Terry Shoe Corp

Citation. 98 B.R. 250 (Bankr. W.D. Va. 1988)

Brief Fact Summary. Lincoln National Life Insurance Company and Westinghouse Credit Corporation, (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), move to lift the automatic stay imposed by section 362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code or provide Plaintiffs adequate protection for certain collateral in which they have a security interest.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. Equity is the value the amount by which the value of the collateral exceeds the debt it secures. Adequate protection for a secured creditor means that the benefit to be protected is the value obtainable from the most commercially reasonable disposition of the collateral within the context of foreclosure proceedings and protection is to be afforded from the date of the stay petition.


Facts. Plaintiffs loaned Craddock-Terry Shoe Corp., (Defendant), $9,000,000 retaining a security interest in the mailing list, customer list, catalogues and four trademarks, (collateral). Defendant filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Concerned that the value of their collateral may be seriously declining, Plaintiffs filed their motion to lift the automatic stay. Plaintiffs presented evidence that the collateral had decreased in value from $8.7 million to $5.7 million.
Defendant presented evidence showing that the fair market value of the collateral had been $700.000 at the date the petition had been filed and $300,000 at the date of the hearing. Defendant showed that the intrinsic value of the collateral had not been irreparably harmed. Defendant showed that by selling the bulk of the company’s assets, the company would revitalize the collateral as well as the company.
Defendant claims that the collateral is necessary to achieve effective reorganization. Defendant offers replacement liens in all its remaining assets, which are worth in excess of $2 million not including $7 million in accounts receivable.

Issue.
Whether the automatic stay should be lifted because Defendant does not have equity in the property and such property is not necessary to an effective reorganization.

Whether Plaintiffs are entitled to relief under section 362(d)(1) because Defendant cannot provide adequate protection for their interest in the collateral.

Content Type: Brief


Comments are closed.