Kai Zeng and Kon M Asimacopoulos, Kirkland & Ellis
This is an extract from the first edition of GRR's The Art of the Ad Hoc. The whole publication is available here.
The purpose and role of ad hoc committees from a debtor’s perspective: the initial phase
Yushan Ng and Helen Ward, Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft
This is an extract from the first edition of GRR's The Art of the Ad Hoc. The whole publication is available here.
Chris Howard, Sullivan & Cromwell
This is an extract from the first edition of GRR's The Art of the Ad Hoc. The whole publication is available here.
The relationship of an ad hoc committee with its stakeholder constituency
No power to bind: the importance of the underlying finance documents in relation to decision making
Nick Angel, Peter Newman and Edward Rasp, Milbank LLP
This is an extract from the first edition of GRR's The Art of the Ad Hoc. The whole publication is available here.
Role and powers
Yen Sum and Lucy Cox, Sidley Austin
This is an extract from the first edition of GRR's The Art of the Ad Hoc. The whole publication is available here.
How many committees?
In a capital structure involving multiple external debt tranches, one of the first questions that arises is the number of committees that will be required.
On May 21, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in a 2-1 opinion, recognized a Chapter 11 bankruptcy case could be dismissed through a “structured dismissal” that deviates from the priority scheme set forth in Section 507 of the Bankruptcy Code.1 With its decision, the Third Circuit joined the Second Circuit in rejecting the Fifth Circuit’s per se exclusion on “structured dismissals” that deviate from the Bankruptcy Code’s prio
As the market for so-called “unitranche” credit facilities continues to increase, the Delaware Bankruptcy Court had an opportunity recently to answer positively the question of whether bankruptcy courts will enforce the Agreement Among Lenders (“AAL”) (a form of intercreditor agreement) used in such structures.
Background: Grupo OAS, a Brazilian construction conglomerate linked to a massive corruption scandal (“OAS”), filed for Chapter 15 creditor protection in the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York on April 15, 2015, two weeks after entering bankruptcy in Brazil. If “recognized” by Bankruptcy Judge Stuart Bernstein, the Chapter 15 petition would, among other things, essentially bind OAS creditors in the United States to the restructuring terms approved by the Brazilian court overseeing OAS’s reorganization.
On March 12, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the authority of a bankruptcy court to issue non-consensual, non-debtor releases in connection with the confirmation of a plan of reorganization.1 With this decision, the Eleventh Circuit joined the majority view that such releases are permissible under certain circumstances.
Background
On January 21, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit entered an opinion holding that an authorized UCC-3 termination statement is effective, for purposes of Delaware’s Uniform Commercial Code (the “UCC”), to terminate the perfection of the underlying security interest even though the secured lender never intended to extinguish the security interest and mistakenly authorized the filing.1
Background