For the second time in the past few months, Judge Christopher Sontchi has dashed the hopes of certain creditors in the Energy Future Holdings (“EFH”) chapter 11 case that they would be paid a make-whole premium worth over $400 million.
By nearly any measure, the Chapter 11 cases of Hawker Beechcraft and its affiliates (the “Debtors”) stand as a significant success. The cases began as a standalone reorganization predicated upon a restructuring support agreement (the “RSA”) among the Debtors’ senior lenders and noteholders, which soon thereafter gained the support of the
Opposing lawyers for Jefferson County, the debtor in the largest Chapter 9 municipal bankruptcy case ever filed, and the holders of its sewer warrants squared off last week in the ongoing fight over control of the County’s sewer system and the right to its revenues. (Expert witness
The travails of Jefferson County, Alabama are well known.
The Chapter 11 filing of the Los Angeles Dodgers is a desperate move by Frank McCourt to try to maintain his ownership of the team. At least McCourt, whatever his shortcomings as a major league franchise owner, chose wisely in selecting bankruptcy lawyers. Partners Bruce Bennett and
Some legal commentators have lamented the extent to which lenders have been able to use debtor in possession (“DIP”) financing arrangements to gain control over an entire Chapter 11 case.
The economic fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic will leave in its wake a significant increase in commercial chapter 11 filings. Many of these cases will feature extensive litigation involving breach of contract claims, business interruption insurance disputes, and common law causes of action based on novel interpretations of long-standing legal doctrines such as force majeure.
In Millenium Lab Holdings, Delaware District Court Judge Leonard Stark, on an appeal from a bankruptcy court order confirming a plan of reorganization, recently upheld a challenge to the bankruptcy court’s constitutional authority to release claims against non-debtor third parties under the plan.
The Supreme Court has not handled its recent major bankruptcy decisions well. The jurisdictional confusion engendered by its 2011 decision in Stern v.