On April 8, 2015, we distributed a Corporate Alert outlining two important decisions of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York and their potential effects on future debt exchange offers.1 Since then, the Education Management court has issued a final ruling on the following question, as stated by the court in its most recent decision: “does a debt restructuring violate Section 316(b) of the Trust Indenture Act (the Act) when it does not modify any indenture term explicitly governing the right to receive interest or principal on

Sophisticated real estate lenders spend significant amounts of time and energy attempting to insulate themselves from potential bankruptcy filings by their borrowers. A primary reason, which many an experienced real estate lender has found out the hard way, is the risk that a debtor in bankruptcy may “cram down” a plan of reorganization over its lender’s objection. Under a typical cramdown plan, a debtor may stretch out payments to its secured creditor for several years and attempt to replace its negotiated interest rate with a new, below- market rate of interest.

On May 4, Judge Vincent Bricetti of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a ruling in the Momentive Performance Materials cases affirming the bankruptcy court’s confirmation rulings.  Key themes raised in this case of interest to distressed investors and addressed in Judge Bricetti’s ruling include 

In re Ramz Real Estate Co., LLC, 510 B.R. 712 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2013) –

An undersecured mortgagee objected to a debtor’s proposed plan of reorganization on several grounds, including that (1) the plan was not approved by a proper impaired class and (2) retention of equity by the debtor’s members violated the absolute priority rule.

Judge Vincent Bricetti of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a ruling in the Momentive Performance Materials cases affirming the bankruptcy court’s confirmation rulings on Monday, May 4.  Key themes raised in this case of interest to distressed investors and addressed in Judge Bricetti’s ruling include the appropriate interpretation of certain inde

A bankruptcy case^[1] (no surprise) has produced another instructive court ruling on post-acceleration enforceability of a prepayment (make-whole) premium provision contained in a debt instrument. This latest lesson comes via the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, affirming a ruling of that district’s U.S.

In a memorandum decision dated May 4, 2015, Judge Vincent L. Briccetti of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York affirmed the September 2014 decision of Judge Robert D. Drain of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, confirming the joint plans of reorganization (the “Plan”) in the Chapter 11 cases of MPM Silicones LLC and its affiliates (“Momentive”). Appeals were taken on three separate parts of Judge Drain’s confirmation decision, each of which ultimately was affirmed by the district court:

AlphaStar Insurance Group Ltd. ("AlphaStar") (f/k/a Stirling Cooke Brown Holdings Ltd) was a group of companies which provided, among other services, reinsurance brokerage and intermediary services through companies in London, Bermuda and the United States. The companies collapsed and eventually declared bankruptcy, largely as a result of their involvement in the personal accident reinsurance market. Richard E.

The New York Insurance Department, as Liquidator of Nassau Insurance Company, pursued Jeanne Diloreto for 20 years to recover what it contended were assets diverted from Nassau, recovering a judgment in state court that it attempt to execute upon. Superintendent DiNallo ended up filing an involuntary bankruptcy petition against Ms. Diloreto, which was dismissed, in part based upon procedural infirmities.

In a recent opinion,1 the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York emphasized that foreign confidentiality statutes do not deprive an American court of the power to order a party subject to its jurisdiction to produce evidence — even though the act of production may be considered a criminal offense in a foreign jurisdiction and subject the party to serious consequences, including imprisonment and fines.

Background