203 N. LaSalle St -- The Photo

I figured we might as well make today photo day here at Credit Slips. It could have been somewhat like the days of my youth when we used to go to photo day at Busch Stadium. I could never get close enough to Lou Brock for a decent photo, so instead I have a stack of photos in my desk drawer at home of players like Ted Sizemore and Mike Tyson (the other Mike Tyson). Not all of us are that photogenic enough for that kind of photo day. You Credit Slips bloggers know who you are.

What I got instead is the photo to the left. I was teaching Bankruptcy Reorgs this semester and remembered I had a photo of 203 N. LaSalle St. sitting on my hard drive. And, yes! It is THAT 203 N. LaSalle St. from the U.S. Supreme Court case of the same name which ruled on the applicability of the fresh capital exception in chapter 11.

I thought others might have a use for this photo also. I took it one Sunday morning several years ago as we were driving out of Chicago. Feel welcome to use it for any noncommercial purposes such as for the classroom. Click on the photo for a larger version.

If you want to use this photo for commercial purposes, such as in a collection for publication, please contact me. You have bigger problems than just needing copyright permission.

Comments

[Marie Carnes]

Sorry for the off topic, but, I miss my Brockabrella.

[Rick Benidx]

Robert:

I represented the 203 N. LaSalle Street Partnership in the bankruptcy case. My office is kitty corner from the building, which I see every day from my office.
You might be interested to know that after the case was remanded from the Supreme Court to the bankruptcy court, we confirmed a new plan for the partnership. Because so much time had passed between confirmation of the first plan in December of 2005 and the remand, appreciation in the value of the property, combined with a reduction in the face amount of the mortgagee's claim from substantial payments of excess cash flow while the case was on appeal, eliminated the mortgagee's unsecured deficiency claim. Consequently, the owners were able to obtain sufficient equity and debt to pay the mortgagee's claim in full under the second plan, which was confirmed in June of 2000. The owners sold the building last year at a substantial profit.
Although I have not run the numbers, I believe that the mortgagee would have received a greater economic return had it simply accepted the terms of the first plan. Under that plan, the mortgagee's $39 million unsecured deficiency claim would have been preserved, and all of the funds which were used during the appeal process to reduce that deficiency claim would have been treated as interest on the secured claim. Proceeds from the sale of the building would have been used to pay the deficiency claim before the owners would have received any return. In short, the mortgagee won a battle in the Supreme Court, but lost the war.

[Bob Lawless]

Mr. Benidx:

Thanks for your comment. For those of us who teach the case, those comments will be much more useful than my photograph. It's a great teaching lesson for students about being problem solvers first and litigators second (or third or fourth).

Bob

P.S.--I miss the Brockabella too, Ms. Carnes.