There has been quite a lot of discussion over the past few months about the bench rulings issued by Judge Drain of the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York inMomentive Performance Materials (see our extensive coverage in four parts here, 

Generally, the priority scheme in section 507 of the Bankruptcy Code dictates the order in which a creditor is paid.

On August 26, 2014, Judge Drain, of the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, concluded the confirmation hearing in Momentive Performance Materials and issued several bench rulings on cramdown interest rates, the availability of a make-whole premium, third party releases, and the extent of the subordination of senior subordinated noteholders. This four-part Bankruptcy Blog series will examine Judge Drain’s rulings in detail, with Part I of this series providing you with a primer on cramdown in the secured creditor context.

August is that hot, humid time of the year when many professionals in the concrete jungles across this country decide to quietly slip away to more scenic locales (if you don’t believe us, try calling up your stockbroker right now… go ahead, we’ll wait).  Unfortunately, fellow bankruptcy practitioner, the law waits for no one.

In a unanimous decision, the New York Court of Appeals stuck a dagger through the heart of bankruptcy estates of failed law firms as it declared that profits earned on matters that former partners of the failed firm take with them to their new employers are not property of the former firm.  Those profits belong to the new firm that provides the legal services.

This article has been contributed to the blog by Caitlin Fell and Justine Erickson. Caitlin Fell is an associate in the insolvency and restructuring group of Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP and Justine Erickson is a summer student at Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP.

Courts Begin to Wrestle with the Impact of on a Debtor’s Ability to Recover Estate Property

Before we offend our fellow law practitioners outside of the United States, we want to emphasize that this blog entry is not about what is “better” – chapter 11 or other bankruptcy laws, U.S.

The Court of Appeal in London today gave judgment in the Waterfall I Appeal, a dispute as to the distribution of the estimated £7 billion surplus of assets in the main Lehman operating company in Europe, Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (LBIE).

LBIE entered administration on 15 September 2008 and has now paid its unsecured creditors 100p for every £1 owed.  The Waterfall I Appeal addressed some of the key issues as to who should receive the surplus, which we discuss below.

Currency Conversion Claims

In post-confirmation proceedings, bankruptcy courts maintain the ability to clarify a plan where silent or ambiguous, and interpret a plan to advance equitable considerations.  However, bankruptcy courts are not allowed to modify a plan outside the confines of section