What does it mean to “cure” a default in the context of a plan of reorganization? This question arises by virtue of section 1123(a)(5)(G) of the Bankruptcy Code, which requires that a plan provide adequate means for the plan’s implementation, including the “curing or waiving of any default.” On November 4, 2016, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals defined what it means to “cure” by holding that a debtor can only cure a contractual default under a plan of reorganization by complying with contractual post-default interest rate provisions.

The use of pre-packs or pre-positioned asset sales in Australia has traditionally been limited. This is a result of impediments to such transactions under the Australian legislative insolvency regime.

The interplay of these impeding factors means that there are few true pre-pack transactions in Australia. However, significant reform to the Australian insolvency regime is expected to be implemented in 2017. We wrote about the main aspects of that reform in our last article, `Australian insolvency law reforms aim to increase business restructuring opportunities'

When should debt be recharacterized as equity? The answer to this question will have an enormous impact upon expected recovery in bankruptcy since equity does not begin to get paid until all prior classes of claims are paid in full. In a recent unpublished opinion, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals provided some guidance on when and in what circumstances recharacterization is appropriate. The Court’s decision also serves as warning to purchasers of debt that they may not be able to hide behind the original debt transaction in a recharacterization fight.

The Australian government is working to significantly reform Australia’s current insolvency laws by mid-2017.

The reforms are intended to achieve greater likelihood of business preservation by introducing the flexibility to achieve real turnaround of businesses in crisis.

The proposed changes include:

The Jevic Holding Corp. bankruptcy case is proving to be precedent setting.  In a prior post, we examined how the court had greatly increased the evidentiary burden on a party seeking to hold one company liable for the debts of another company under a “single employer” theory.  That ruling was seen as a boon for private equity firms who were oftentimes the target of Chapter 11 creditor

When can a bank be at risk of unknowingly receiving a fraudulent transfer? How much information does a bank need to have before it is on “inquiry notice”? A recent decision from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals highlights the risks that a bank takes when it ignores red flags and fails to investigate. This decision should be required reading for all lenders since, in the matter before the Seventh Circuit, the banks’ failure to investigate their borrower’s questionable activity caused the banks to lose their security and have their secured loans reduced to unsecured claims.

Did Trump win again? Yes, but this time it was not “The Donald” but was instead the casino operator Trump Entertainment Resorts, Inc.

Did Trump win again?  Yes, but this time it was not “The Donald” but was instead the casino-operator Trump Entertainment Resorts, Inc. (“Trump Entertainment”).

When can a bank be at risk of unknowingly receiving a fraudulent transfer?  How much information does a bank need to have before it is on “inquiry notice”?  A recent decision from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals highlights the risks that a bank takes when it ignores red flags and fails to investigate.

In re Sentinel Management Group – The Decision

Two days before Christmas, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling that is likely to have a dramatic impact in the highly-contested Caesars Entertainment bankruptcy case.  The decision may also give a green light to other debtors seeking to enjoin lawsuits brought against non-debtor affiliates.