The senior secured note holders recently lost their appeal of the bankruptcy court's decision confirming Momentive's chapter 11 plan.1
Originally published in ABF Journal on May 20, 2015
Determining secured lender cramdown interest rates in Chapter 11 cases has been widely debated, and recent court rulings have proven to be inconclusive. Kaye Scholer Attorneys Madlyn Gleich Primoff and Holly Martin discuss the controversial issue, highlighting the ABI Commission’s recent recommendations that endorse a more favorable approach for secured lenders.
Why Lawyers Need to Pay More Attention to the Distinctions Between Veil-Piercing and Alter-Ego Theories
Two recent decisions of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York may complicate future debt exchange offers. The cases address the validity, under the Trust Indenture Act of 1939, as amended (the Act), of indenture amendments that delete substantive covenant protections in the context of out-of-court debt restructurings. Such amendments are a common feature of debt exchange and cash tender offers and are often essential to achieve a restructuring outside of bankruptcy court.
With the near-historic drop in oil prices, distressed investors are evaluating a myriad of investment opportunities in the oil industry and related fields. One particular area of focus when analyzing these energy-related opportunities are the master limited partnerships that many energy companies utilize in their corporate structure.
Drop in Oil Prices
A recent decision by a New Jersey bankruptcy court scrambles the law regarding rejected trademark licenses.1 Crumbs was a multi-location bakery that also licensed its trademarks and trade secrets to third parties. In July of 2014 Crumbs filed a Chapter 11 reorganization case and in August of 2014 the court entered an order selling substantially all of the assets of Crumbs to LFAC2 free and clear of liens, claims, encumbrances, and interests.
In a case that should cause lenders heartburn, the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina recently ruled that common provisions in a Chapter 11 plan prevented the debtor’s lender from executing on a judgment against the non-debtor owner of the debtor.1 Biltmore is a corporation2 that operates manufactured home parks and sells and rents manufactured homes. McGee is the president and controlling shareholder of Biltmore. Biltmore filed Chapter 11 in January of 2011, and TD Bank was Biltmore’s largest secured creditor.
The House of Representatives passed the Financial Institution Bankruptcy Act of 2014 (H.R. 5421) on December 1, 2014. The bill, if enacted, would add provisions to the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, including a new "subchapter V" of chapter 11, under which "covered financial institutions" would be eligible to be debtors in a chapter 11 bankruptcy case.
First in a Series of Articles on Bankruptcy Issues
For many investors, business bankruptcy is a mysterious black box that chews up investor and creditor value and then spits out assets or, occasionally, a reorganized operating company. In this series of articles, we are going to open up that box and shed some light on the processes of bankruptcy. After all, you never know what business will file next. It is best to have some understanding of the nature of the game – and to be as well-armed as possible.
On August 26, 2014, Judge Robert D. Drain of the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York issued a bench ruling in In re MPM Silicones, LLC, Case No. 14-22503 (RDD), on several aspects of the plan of reorganization filed by debtor Momentive Performance Materials, Inc., a specialty chemicals manufacturing company, and its affiliated debtors.