Restructuring professionals cite giving the debtor a “fresh start” as one of the goals of bankruptcy.  In order to assist the debtor, the Bankruptcy Code contains a number of provisions capping claims.  One of these provisions is 

“A boy’s best friend is his mother.” – Norman Bates

“Let’s have a family gathering for the remaining family members who still speak to each other” – Someecards, Inc.

In an opinion issued on May 4, 2015, Quadrant Structured Products Co., Ltd. v. Vertin, the Court of Chancery provided important guidance to distressed Delaware corporations and their creditors.

The unitranche financing market has expanded significantly in recent years. Generally, a unitranche deal involves two lenders (or groups of lenders) that provide financing on a “first out” and “last out” basis. In conjunction with the financing, the borrower grants one lien and enters into a single credit agreement and the lenders enter into an “Agreement Among Lenders” (“AAL”). An AAL is similar to an intercreditor agreement and provides for certain rights and remedies of the lenders.

The hard work has been done – the plan has been negotiated and confirmed, the confirmation order has been entered, and holders of allowed claims (and maybe even interest holders) await their distribution under the plan. A plan, however, may require that creditors or equity holders take certain acts prior to participation in the plan distribution, or forfeit their right to participate.

Bullard v. Blue Hills Bank, No. 14–116 (previously described in the December 15, 2014, Docket Report)

On May 4, 2015, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Bullard v. Blue Hills Bank, holding that an order denying confirmation of the debtor’s proposed chapter 13 plan is not a “final” order that the debtor can immediately appeal. This holding could have a far-reaching impact on individual and corporate debtors in both chapter 11 and chapter 13 by in most instances eliminating their second bite at the apple in seeking confirmation of a plan.

What happens when a debtor, whose loan is pooled and securitized, files for bankruptcy? Are payments made to investors recoverable as fraudulent transfers or preferences?

Background: Grupo OAS, a Brazilian construction conglomerate linked to a massive corruption scandal (“OAS”), filed for Chapter 15 creditor protection in the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York on April 15, 2015, two weeks after entering bankruptcy in Brazil. If “recognized” by Bankruptcy Judge Stuart Bernstein, the Chapter 15 petition would, among other things, essentially bind OAS creditors in the United States to the restructuring terms approved by the Brazilian court overseeing OAS’s reorganization.

People are generally familiar with the concept that a party’s right to appeal applies to those orders that are “final.” A “final” order is one that resolves or disposes of the disputes between the parties. While an interlocutory order may be appealable at the discretion of the appellate court, the aggrieved party has no absolute right to appeal an order that is not “final.”