Practitioners that exclusively represent clients in large scale restructurings and chapter 11 reorganizations may be used to the debtor remaining in place with senior management continuing to oversee the day to day operations of the company and overseeing the debtor’s reorganization case.  It may seem strange then to such practitioners that, unlike in chapter 11 cases, the debtor in a chapter 7 case often has only a limited role in its own bankruptcy case after the initial debtor interview and the section 341 meeting of creditors.  In a chapter 7 case, a trustee is appointed and i

When it comes to releases, plan proponents generally agree the broader the better.  But when plan proponents include far reaching and all-encompassing language in hopes of securing a release for every possible claim under the sun, they sometimes overlook the very claims for which they may actual want a release.  This was the case in a recent decision, 

It is widely known that one of the basic tenets of U.S.

The Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York recently handed down a decision declining to grant a creditor’s motion to reopen a debtor’s chapter 7 case and vacate a discharge order. Although the legal predicates at issue in that case may not be relevant to all practitioners, the case itself serves as a valuable reminder about “best” practices and provides a number of teachable moments for attorneys of all ages and practice areas.

Background

Attorney.  Counselor.  Advisor.  As “the last bastion of the generalist,” the role of the restructuring attorney takes various forms and requires a restructuring attorney to wear many different hats – at times acting both as lawyer and business advisor.  This combination of business and law is very often what draws professionals to the practice area in the first place.  The line, however, between business and legal advisor is often blurry and imprecise, and a recent 

In a decision that could have far reaching implications on the manner and level of secured creditor participation in bankruptcy cases, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently held that the deadline for filing proofs of claim under Bankruptcy Rule 3002(c) applied to all creditors – both unsecured and secured.  Previously, secured creditors had relied on conflicting cases that permitted secured creditors to f

Bankruptcy courts may hear state law disputes “when the parties knowingly and voluntarily consent,” held the U.S. Supreme Court on May 26, 2015. Wellness Int’l Network Ltd. v. Sharif, 2015 WL 2456619, at *3 (May 26, 2015). That consent, moreover, need not be express, reasoned the Court. Id. at *9 (“Nothing in the Constitution requires that consent to adjudication by a bankruptcy court be express.”). Reversing the U.S.

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, on May 4, 2015, affirmed U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Robert D. Drain’s decision confirming the reorganization plan for Momentive Performance Materials Inc. and its affiliated debtors.1 The Bankruptcy Court’s decision was controversial because it forced the debtors’ senior secured creditors to accept new secured notes bearing interest at below- market rates.

As a part of our continuing coverage of the 2012-2014 Final Report and Recommendations of the American Bankruptcy Institute’s Commission to Study the Reform of Chapter 11, we’ve reported on a number of the Commission’s proposed revisions and reforms to the Bankruptcy Code, many of which (i.e., systemically important financial institutions, cross-border cases, DIP financing, etc.) primarily impact the traditional big players i

Following the Dec. 8 publication by the American Bankruptcy Institute (“ABI”) Commission to Study the Reform of Chapter 11 of a report (the “Report”) recommending changes to Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code (“Code”),[1] we continue to analyze the proposals contained in the ABI’s 400-page Report. One proposal we wanted to immediately highlight would, if adopted, significantly increase the risk profile for secured lenders.