A creditor’s ability to vote on a plan of reorganization is one of its most fundamental rights in a chapter 11 bankruptcy. For strategic investors in distressed debt, the power to vote—and potentially control a voting class (or obtain a blocking position in that class)— can be a critical tool in maximizing value and return on investment. Investors should be aware, however, that a recent decision by Judge Robert E.

Last week, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Bailey,2 establishing an important precedent concerning the ability of bankruptcy courts to release claims against third party non-debtors in chapter 11 plans of reorganization. In the June 2009 issue of Cadwalader’s Restructuring Review newsletter, we introduced this case and considered the potential implications of a ruling on this important but unsettled topic.

In recent opinions, the United States Courts of Appeals for the Fifth and Seventh Circuits have revisited the doctrine of equitable subordination and have underscored the requirement that, before a court can equitably subordinate a creditor’s claim, the court must find that other creditors have been harmed by the actions of the creditor. Importantly, both decisions stress that equitable subordination is meant to be remedial and not punitive, and may not be imposed merely because a creditor has engaged in misconduct.

In Mukamal v. Bakes,1 the trustee of two trusts created under a chapter 11 plan of reorganization filed a complaint (the “Complaint”) against the former directors and officers of the debtors, the dominant shareholders of the debtors and the debtors’ accounting firm, alleging, among other things, various breaches of fiduciary duties.

Creditors have recently made some headway in collecting the full amount to which they are contractually entitled pursuant to various debt instruments. In In re Calpine Corp.,1 reported in our summer 2007 newsletter, the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York permitted a secured creditor to collect damages (albeit in the form of an unsecured claim) caused by dashed expectations due to the early repayment of its debt.

In recent weeks, a number of transactions have come across our desks involving levered feeders set up as an investment vehicle for insurance-related investors. For regulatory reasons, these vehicles are established such that each such investor’s commitment is comprised of both a loan commitment (the “Debt Commitment”) and an equity commitment (the “Equity Commitment”). This structure presents a challenge for lenders trying to balance the requested borrowing base treatment for investor commitments of this type against the potential bankruptcy implications that this structure poses.

On August 9, 2019, in a unanimous decision (written by a former bankruptcy judge), the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the confirmation of the Peabody Energy Chapter 11 plan (“Plan”)¹ with a prominent backstopped rights offering component.

In re Mississippi Valley Livestock, Inc., 745 F.3d 299 (7th Cir. 2014) –

A debtor sold cattle for the account of a cattle producer and then remitted the proceeds to the producer.  A chapter 7 trustee sought to recover the payments as preferential transfers.  The trustee lost in both the bankruptcy and district courts, and then appealed to the 7th Circuit.

Secured transactions typically include two key documents, which are often executed simultaneously: a promissory note memorializing loan and repayment terms executed by the borrower in favor of the lender and a security agreement granting the lender an interest in collateral securing the borrower’s debt owed to the bank. If a borrower ends up filing for bankruptcy, the bank likely will seek to enforce the security agreement against the borrower and recover the collateral. However, as made clear by the U.S.

In re Demers, 511 B.R. 233 (Bankr. D. R.I. 2014) –

A chapter 13 debtor objected to the portion of a mortgagee’s claim consisting of expenses related to foreclosure of its mortgage. She argued that since the mortgagee failed to comply with notice requirements under the mortgage, the foreclosure expenses were not valid.