Background

On 6 March 2020, the restructuring of Doncasters Group's 1.22 billion funded debt was completed. Following a successful non-core disposals program, the Doncasters Group (a leading worldwide supplier of high quality engineered components for the aerospace, industrial gas turbine and specialist automotive industries) operates from 12 principal manufacturing facilities based across the United Kingdom, the United States, Germany, Mexico and China.

Judge Drain has now issued a long-awaited Order on Remand from the Second Circuit’s decision in Momentive Performance Materials determining the appropriate cramdown interest rate applicable to replacement notes issued by Momentive.

The recent success in Claire’s Stores’ $2.1 billion restructuring reinforces the importance of a proactive approach to corporate governance for closely held or sponsor-owned portfolio companies.

Weil Summer Associate David Rybak contributed to this post

In a recent decision by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, In re Hercules Offshore, Inc., et al., Judge Kevin J. Carey confirmed Hercules Offshore’s plan over objections by the Equity Committee—including an objection to allegedly impermissible plan releases and exculpations.

Background

Since Marblegate was decided in 2014, the only court to address claims under §316(b) of the Trust Indenture Act (“TIA”) in the context of a corporate restructuring transaction is

“Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.”

– Albert Einstein

For those interested in a quick read with some juicy facts and egregious acts by the relevant practitioners, check out the recent opinion in Church Joint Venture, L.P. v. Blasingame (In re Blasingame), where the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held that an order denying approval of a proposed settlement agreement was not a final order susceptible to appeal as of right.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in Marblegate Asset Management LLC v. Education Management Corp. on May 12, 2016. One might have thought from the courtroom’s overflow crowd that it was the opening argument in a mob trial, but this is a case about a bond indenture. At issue is whether an out-of-court debt restructuring that did not amend the indenture’s principal and interest terms, but that effectively precluded the noteholders’ ability to be repaid, violated § 316(b) of the Trust Indenture Act (TIA).

Does the bankruptcy filing of a limited liability company without the approval of its “Special Member,” the secured lender serving as “blocking director,” render that filing infirm as unauthorized and subject to dismissal?  Not necessarily, held the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois in a