Section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code provides debtors an efficient and flexible mechanism to dispose of substantially all estate assets outside of the confines of the Bankruptcy Code’s provisions concerning plan confirmation.  The Third Circuit’s recent decision in 

Introduction

Over the last few years, the European leveraged finance market has seen rapid growth of senior secured high yield notes (“SSN”) and senior secured covenant-lite term loan  B (“TLB”) financings. A common feature of both SSNs and TLBs (together “Senior Secured Debt”) is that their terms typically permit the incurrence of senior unsecured debt by a borrower and its restricted subsidiaries (a “Credit Group”) subject to either satisfaction of a  financial ratio or through various permitted debt baskets.

It seems only fitting that recent decisions by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and its bankruptcy court regarding the nature of electricity should have sent, at least initially, a jolt through the energy community.  Perhaps the Southern District court would lead the charge for one side or the other in an ongoing debate over whether electricity constitutes goods or services—a controversy that has potentially far-reaching implications (in bankruptcy cases, concerning the priority of claims of electricity providers, and, in ordinary transactions, for

In a September 18, 2015 order, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York affirmed a bankruptcy court order denying administrative claim treatment to Hudson Energy Services, LLC (“Hudson”) for its retail sales of electricity to the debtor.¹ The decision does not address any “safe-harbor” or forward contract issues, but is among a number of decisions providing for inconsistent treatment of such sales.

With fall weather now upon us, it may be hard to believe that those long weekends spent at the Hamptons were only weeks ago.  Those readers who fell behind on their bankruptcy blog reading due to poor Wi-Fi connection on the Jitney might have missed our post on 

For the past year, many involved in the debt buyer industry have closely followed the 11^th Circuit’s ruling in Crawford v. LVNV Funding, LLC.   Last week, the bankruptcy court again dismissed the adversary proceeding. Crawford v. LVNV Funding, LLC, Case No. 08-30192-DHW, Adv. Pro. No. 12-030333-DHW (Sep.

A federal judge in New York – the Hon. Richard J. Sullivan – mostly granted JP Morgan Chase Bank’s motion to dismiss claims brought on behalf of unsecured creditors of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. related to JPM’s requirement that Lehman Brothers Inc., LBH’s broker-dealer subsidiary, pledge and post extra collateral in September 2008, shortly before LBI filed for bankruptcy protection on September 15, 2008.

Customer information has become an increasingly valuable business asset.  And, the volume and detail of other available information about consumers has increased along with it, well beyond mere customer names and addresses to preferences, purchasing history, and online activity.  This means that when a business is sold, customer information is often sold along with it.  But careful diligence is required in handling this intangible asset, and the recent settlement in the RadioShack bankruptcy case is instructive.

A.  Fees & Costs

In a blow to the Lehman Chapter 11 estates, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held on September 16, 2015 that Intel Corporation’s Loss calculation resulting from a failed transaction under an ISDA Master Agreement was appropriate.¹ The decision is significant both because of the dearth of judicial interpretation of the ISDA mechanics regarding the calculation of early termination amounts, and because it affirms the general market understanding that a non-defaulting party has broad discretion in calculating “Loss,” so long as its