This is a continuation of Part 1, discussing a number of published and unpublished decisions by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and the United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Eighth Circuit (the “BAP”) that impact both consumer and business bankruptcy practice throughout the circuit.

In two recent decisions, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York adopted an interpretation of Section 316(b) of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939 (the “TIA”) that may complicate future exchange offers and, in some cases, force bond restructurings that might otherwise have been completed out-of-court to be effectuated through a bankruptcy filing.1  In Marblegate Asset Management v.

As a part of our continuing coverage of the 2012-2014 Final Report and Recommendations of the American Bankruptcy Institute’s Commission to Study the Reform of Chapter 11, we’ve reported on a number of the Commission’s proposed revisions and reforms to the Bankruptcy Code, many of which (i.e., systemically important financial institutions, cross-border cases, DIP financing, etc.) primarily impact the traditional big players i

Changes to Ohio's receivership statute will go into effect as of March 23, 2015. The changes include, among other things:

• Expansion of the circumstances under which a receiver may be appointed
• "Priority consideration" for the candidate proposed by the party seeking the appointment of a receiver
• Certain clarifications with respect to exercising the equity of redemption

The revised statute also expressly authorizes "free and clear" sales - perhaps the most anticipated change to Ohio's receivership statute.

For the past several years, low interest rates and higher commodity prices have resulted in generally favorable financial conditions in the energy sector, keeping energy bankruptcy activity to a minimum. With the recent sharp decline of prices in numerous commodities and forecasts of higher interest rates in the near future, there is a likelihood that the financial condition of some companies in the energy and commodities sectors could deteriorate significantly.

Despite lower-than-average Chapter 11 activity in 2014, the legal landscape for distressed investors has continued to evolve, with significant legal developments in credit bidding, make-whole premiums and intercreditor agreements. By staying apprised of the evolving jurisprudence in these areas, distressed investors can mitigate risks that have foiled lenders in recent cases.

Credit Bidding

The Bankruptcy Code's so-called "cramdown" statute provides debtors with a significant tool that can be used to impose a reorganization plan upon recalcitrant secured lenders, subject to fulfillment of certain requirements. In particular, Section 1129(b) of the Bankruptcy Code allows a bankruptcy court to approve a debtor's reorganization plan over the objections of a secured creditor so long as the plan is "fair and equitable" to the creditor.

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 contains two sets of provisions for managing the insolvency of financial institutions. First, the legislation creates an Orderly Liquidation Authority (OLA), a comprehensive regime for resolving a financial institution whose failure is determined to potentially endanger the U.S. financial system.

Corporate Chapter 11 filings remained relatively low in 2014, down slightly from 2013, due to a robust capital market environment, low interest rates and easy access to financing. These and other factors allowed highly leveraged borrowers that might otherwise have been Chapter 11 restructuring candidates to refinance or pursue other nonjudicial restructuring alternatives. Among those companies that filed corporate bankruptcies, the District of Delaware and the Southern District of New York continued to capture the lion's share of cases.

There were nearly a million bankruptcy cases filed by individuals and businesses in 2014.  It is safe to say that only the tiniest fraction of such debtors have any familiarity with the Supreme Court’s decision in Stern v.