Bankruptcy

In re: Herring — Study Notes

In re Herring, 54 F.3d 328 (7th Cir. 1998)

Study notes for In re: Herring: professor notes, cold call prep, exam angles, and memory aids.

A single asset real estate debtor loses automatic stay protection if it fails to comply with Section 362(d)(3) requirements.
Professor Notes

In re: Herring illustrates the strict compliance required by debtors under Section 362(d)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code. The case emphasizes that single asset real estate debtors must not only file a feasible reorganization plan but also commence payments within 90 days of filing for bankruptcy. The court's ruling reinforces the principle that failing to adhere to these timelines can significantly impact the automatic stay protections, as creditors may seek relief from the stay with less burden than would typically be required in bankruptcy cases.

Moreover, this case highlights the critical balance between the rights of creditors and the protections offered to debtors under the bankruptcy framework. The court's decision serves as a reminder to practitioners that diligent adherence to statutory requirements is paramount, particularly for single asset entities operating under the Bankruptcy Code. This case sets a precedent for the enforcement of timelines in Chapter 11 filings and underscores the importance of strategic planning in bankruptcy proceedings.

Cold Call Prep
  1. 1The automatic stay in bankruptcy protects the debtor from creditor actions unless certain conditions are met.
  2. 2Describe the significance of Section 362(d)(3) for single asset real estate debtors.
  3. 3What were the key findings of the court regarding feasibility in the reorganization plan?
  4. 4How does the decision in In re: Herring influence future cases involving single asset real estate?
  5. 5Explain the implications of failing to meet deadlines imposed by the bankruptcy code under Section 362.
Mnemonic Device

Stay in line, file on time, or lose your chance.

Distinguish From
CaseDistinction
In re: Circle K Corp.In Circle K, the court found that the debtor had made sufficient progress towards a feasible plan, allowing for the continuation of the automatic stay.
In re: 610 A St., LLCUnlike Herring, 610 A St. demonstrated compliance with payment and planning requirements, maintaining the automatic stay protections.
Policy Arguments

For the Rule

Strict enforcement of deadlines encourages timely reorganization efforts and protects creditor interests.

Against the Rule

Rigid adherence to deadlines may unfairly disadvantage genuine attempts at rehabilitation for financially distressed entities.

Class Discussion Points
  • Discuss the impact of the decision on the strategic planning of single asset real estate entities.
  • Explore the balance between protecting creditor rights and providing operational breathing room for debtors.
  • Evaluate how the decision reflects the overall philosophy of the Bankruptcy Code regarding timely reorganization.
Exam Angle

This case may appear on an exam in scenarios involving single asset real estate debtors, particularly focusing on the consequences of failing to comply with statutory obligations under the Bankruptcy Code. Students should be prepared to analyze implications for automatic stays and creditor rights.

Ace Your Cold Calls with Briefly

Get AI-powered case briefs, study notes, and cold call prep for every case in your casebook.