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.

On August 28, 2014, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit^[1] delivered a stern admonition about the risk of failing to appeal when it ruled that a union that had not filed a notice of appeal could not benefit from a successful appeal by another union in the same matter.

The Supreme Judicial Court, the high court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, has answered a certified question from the Bankruptcy Court about the interpretation of Massachusetts’s fine art consignment law, G.L. c. 104A.  The case, Eve Plumb et al. v.

In connection with a contentious restructuring, Judge Drain of the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, ruled recently that certain lenders to Momentive Performance Materials Inc. (Case No. 14-22503) had no enforceable claim to a so-called “make-whole” premium.   

In its Scantling opinion, the Eleventh Circuit held that a Chapter 20 debtor (a chapter 13 debtor who previously filed and concluded a chapter 7 case) could strip off valueless junior liens on her principal residence even thought she was ineligible for a discharge in the chapter 13 case. Full disclosure: our firm, Berger Singerman, represented the appellee, Ms. Scantling.

As we all know, on June 9 of this year, the Supreme Court issued its long awaited decision in Executive Benefits Ins. Agency vs. Arkison, 134 S. Ct. 2165, 189 L. Ed. 2d 83 (2014), which we had hoped would resolve the open questions arising from Stern v. Marshall, 131 S. Ct. 2594, 180 L.Ed 2d 475 (2011).

As wealth preservation for future generations has become a popular topic among clients, estate planning practitioners have changed their tune when advising clients on how distributions should be made to beneficiaries.

On September 3, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit entered an opinion vacating various orders of the United States Bankruptcy Court and District Court for the Southern District of Texas (the “Bankruptcy Court” and the “District Court”) in the bankruptcy cases of TMT Procurement Corporation and its affiliated debtors (the “Debtors”), including a final order approving the Debtors’ post-petition debtor in possession financing (the “DIP Order”) with Macqua

On August 26, 2014, Judge Drain 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.

The United States District Court for the District of Delaware recently entered a Memorandum Opinion (the “District Court Opinion”) concerning the constitutional sufficiency of the publication of the bar date notice in the New Century bankruptcy as it applies to unknown creditors.1 The District Court vacated the Bankruptcy Court’s August 30, 2013,order (the “Constructive Notice Order”), which had approved the constitutional sufficiency of notice to unknown creditors by publication in The Wall Street Journal and the Orange County Register.