Is a debtor required to pay default rate interest when it reinstates a loan under a plan of reorganization? According to a recent Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals decision, In re Sagamore Partners, Ltd., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 15382 (Aug. 31, 2015), the answer depends upon the underlying loan documents and applicable non-bankruptcy law.
On June 1, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States decided Bank of America, N.A. v. Caulkett, 135 S. Ct. 1995 (2015) in a unanimous opinion—except for a footnote—authored by Justice Thomas, and determined that a chapter 7 debtor may not void a junior lien under § 506(d) of the Bankruptcy Code even when the debt owed on the senior lien exceeds the present value of the property.
Restructurings are all about alternatives. It is one thing for a creditor to hold an instrument that entitles it to payment of $X on Y date. But if the debtor does not have the cash to satisfy the obligation when due, some type of restructuring must occur.
Section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code provides debtors an efficient and flexible mechanism to dispose of substantially all estate assets outside of the confines of the Bankruptcy Code’s provisions concerning plan confirmation. The Third Circuit’s recent decision in
Introduction
Over the last few years, the European leveraged finance market has seen rapid growth of senior secured high yield notes (“SSN”) and senior secured covenant-lite term loan B (“TLB”) financings. A common feature of both SSNs and TLBs (together “Senior Secured Debt”) is that their terms typically permit the incurrence of senior unsecured debt by a borrower and its restricted subsidiaries (a “Credit Group”) subject to either satisfaction of a financial ratio or through various permitted debt baskets.
The first step to defending a debtor's objection to proof of claim is knowing one was filed. Debtors are required to provide notice to creditors. The Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure contain numerous rules governing notice, each describing the form, content and time periods for establishing their adequacy. Deviating from these rules could result in the relief requested being denied, despite an otherwise justifiable claim. Conversely, a creditor's untimely recognition and response to a debtor's properly noticed objection may result in harsh consequences, wh
On September 18, 2015, Margaret M. Okamoto (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint (the “Complaint”) in The United States District Court for the District of Nevada alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. (the “FCRA”), against, inter alia, Bank of America, N.A. (“BOA”), Mutual of Omaha Bank (“MOB”), and Experian Information Solutions, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”). See Okamoto v. Bank of America et al., No. 2:15-cv-01800-GMN-GWF (Sept. 18, 2015).
The retail industry appears to be reaching the crossroads of complete transformation due to a significant shift in consumer sentiment. Those companies that can embrace the change quickly enough will likely survive. Those that cannot may simply become legends. Indeed, we have seen well-known companies such as RadioShack, Brookstone,
Following its sister court in Colorado[1] the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Arizona recently held that the debtor’s operation of a business that it illegal under federal law mandates dismissal of an involuntary bankruptcy petition filed against the debtor. In re Medpoint Management, LLC, 528 B.R.