The Third Circuit’s recent holding in In re Jevic Holding Corp., raised a number of intriguing topics for us bankruptcy nerds so we could not resist taking a closer look at one of the issues presented in the case – structured dismissals.  If you are not familiar with the concept, you are probably not alone, as the use of a structured dismissal as a means to exit bankruptcy is relatively uncommon.  Although the ma

Benjamin Franklin is quoted as having said “in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.”  No offense to Mr. Franklin, but we had always thought that there was at least one other certainty in this world—in a bankruptcy case, creditors get paid pursuant to the priority scheme under section 507(a) of the Bankruptcy Code.  It turns out, however, that Mr.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently held that numerous forbearances by a lender that allowed a single asset real estate borrower to stave off bankruptcy for four years provided value in the context of a constructive fraudulent transfer action. 1756 W. Lake St. LLC v. Am. Chartered Bank (In re 1756 W. Lake St. LLC), Case No. 14-1869 (7th Cir.

This week, the Weil Bankruptcy Blog premieres a new series, “Lookback Period.”  In these entries, we will periodically review and summarize the hot topics on which we have been writing over the last couple of weeks.  We thought this might be an easy way on a summer Friday (or a rainy weekend) to catch up on what you might have missed in the Weil Bankruptcy Blog.

More Momentive, This Time From the District Court

This is the fifth post in our Bitcoin Bankruptcy series on the Weil Bankruptcy Blog.  We have concluded that a hypothetical U.S.-based bitcoin exchange likely would not constitute a stockbroker or a 

Scheme Hot Topics Bulletin: Part III Schemes vs Chapter 11 June 2015 Using the key features of our case study below, we compare schemes and Chapter 11 proceedings on the following grounds: ■ jurisdiction (filing requirements and crossborder recognition); ■ moratorium; ■ scope, i.e. which creditors can be included in (or excluded from) the relevant proceedings; ■ control; ■ new money; ■ cramdown; ■ valuation; ■ third party releases; ■ disclosure; ■ market impact; ■ timing and costs; and ■ special Chapter 11 rules on oil & gas interests.

In a decision that has already prompted much discussion and debate amongst the bankruptcy bar, the Supreme Court held in Baker Botts LLP v.

“Smokey, this is not ‘Nam. This is [bankruptcy]. There are rules.”
– Walter Sobchak, The Big Lebowski (as modified)

Breach or termination?  In most cases involving the rejection of an unexpired lease where the debtor is the lessee, whether a rejection constitutes merely a “breach,” as stated in section 365(g) of the Bankruptcy Code, or a “termination” is largely academic – the debtor vacates the premises, and the lessor files a prepetition claim for rejection damages. The debtor and its landlord may argue about the

On May 4, Judge Vincent Bricetti of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a ruling in the Momentive Performance Materials cases affirming the bankruptcy court’s confirmation rulings.  Key themes raised in this case of interest to distressed investors and addressed in Judge Bricetti’s ruling include