Two recent decisions from the District Court for the Southern District of New York have renewed interest in the Trust Indenture Act and the ability of minority bondholders to use it as a shield to protect their rights in an out-of-court nonconsensual restructuring: Marblegate Asset Management, LLC v.
Attorney. Counselor. Advisor. As “the last bastion of the generalist,” the role of the restructuring attorney takes various forms and requires a restructuring attorney to wear many different hats – at times acting both as lawyer and business advisor. This combination of business and law is very often what draws professionals to the practice area in the first place. The line, however, between business and legal advisor is often blurry and imprecise, and a recent
The Executive Summary provided a short version of the facts. The next few paragraphs provide a longer version, or you can skip to the next section.
In a recent decision, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York upheld a bankruptcy court order that enjoined a plaintiff holding an asbestos claim from pursuing a state court products liability claim against the successor to Manville Forest Products Corporate (“MFP”). Notably, the Court reaffirmed that a claim relating to prepetition exposure to asbestos is a prepetition claim, even though the injury may not have manifested itself until after the petition date.
With data privacy issues constantly in the news, what do businesses need to know about handling personal information when they’re considering bankruptcy, especially if some personal information – like customer records – may be a valuable asset?
The United States District Court for the District of Delaware recently affirmed a Delaware bankruptcy court case that held that the mutuality requirement of section 553(a)1The case declined to find mutuality in a triangular setoff between the debtor, a parent entity that owed the debtor money, and that entity’s subsidiary, which was a creditor.2
Introduction
In re Katy Indus., Inc., 590 B.R. 628 (Bankr. D. Del. 2018) presented an interesting question: If a stalking horse bidder’s successful bid to purchase a company in chapter 11 was partially predicated upon a credit bid, and a portion of that credit bid was challenged after the sale closed, what would be the result for the bidder’s overall successful bid if that portion of the credit bid was eliminated?
Background
The United States Supreme Court recently declined to review the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit’s opinion in Momentive Performance Materials Inc. v. BOKF, NA. BOKF and Wilmington Trust, indenture trustees for Momentive’s First Lien Notes and 1.5 Lien Notes (which we’ll refer to as the “Senior Notes”) respectively, each submitted certiorari petitions after the Second Circuit held that they were not entitled to receive make-whole premiums following Momentive’s bankruptcy.
What Is a Make-Whole?
Last week, in Merit Management Group, LP v. FTI Consulting, Inc.1 the Supreme Court settled a split in the circuit courts, unanimously holding that the safe harbor provision created by 11 U.S.C. § 546(e), 11 U.S.C.
LevFin Quarterly
Editors' Welcome