Fulltext Search
Custodial Receipts: A Useful Tool for Restructuring Insured Municipal Bonds

Municipal restructurings pose many challenges distinct from those encountered in a typical corporate bankruptcy. One challenge frequently encountered in the context of a municipal restructuring is how to restructure municipal bonds insured by a monoline insurance company.

USA, Insolvency & Restructuring, Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP, Municipal bond
A Look at the Second Circuit Decision in Marblegate

In January 2017, a divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued its widely reported opinion in Marblegate Asset Management, LLC vs. Education Management Corp., in which the majority held that the “right ... to receive payment” set forth in Section 316(b) of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939 (TIA) prohibits only nonconsensual amendments to an indenture’s core payment terms and does not protect the practical ability of bondholders to recover payment.

Background

USA, Banking, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP, Bond (finance), Second Circuit
Ninth Circuit Finally Abandons Entz-White: Default-Rate Interest Required to Cure and Reinstate Secured Debt Under Chapter 11 Plan

In 1994, Congress amended the Bankruptcy Code to add section 1123(d), which provides that, if a chapter 11 plan proposes to "cure" a default under a contract, the cure amount must be determined in accordance with the underlying agreement and applicable nonbankruptcy law. Since then, a substantial majority of courts, including the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, have held that such a cure amount must include any default-rate interest required under either the contract or applicable nonbankruptcy law.

USA, Banking, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Jones Day, Default (finance), Ninth Circuit, Eleventh Circuit
Ninth Circuit Abandons Entz-White: Default-Rate Interest Required to Cure and Reinstate Secured Debt Under Chapter 11 Plan

In 1994, Congress amended the Bankruptcy Code to add section 1123(d), which provides that, if a chapter 11 plan proposes to "cure" a default under a contract, the cure amount must be determined in accordance with the underlying agreement and applicable nonbankruptcy law. Since then, a substantial majority of courts, including the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, have held that such a cure amount must include any default-rate interest required under either the contract or applicable nonbankruptcy law. See, e.g., JPMCC 2006-LDP7 Miami Beach Lodging, LLC v.

USA, Banking, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Jones Day, Ninth Circuit
Eleventh Circuit weighs in on section 1123(d): reinstatement of defaulted loan agreement under chapter 11 plan requires payment of default-rate interest

In 1994, Congress amended the Bankruptcy Code to, among other things, add section 1123(d), which provides that, if a chapter 11 plan proposes to “cure” a default under a contract, the cure amount must be determined in accordance with the underlying agreement and applicable nonbankruptcy law. Since then, a majority of courts have held that such a cure amount must include any default-rate interest required under either the contract or applicable nonbankruptcy law. A ruling recently handed down by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit endorses this view.

USA, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Jones Day, Interest, Default (finance), Eleventh Circuit