This article has been contributed to the blog by Caitlin Fell and Mary Angela Rowe. Caitlin Fell is an Associate in the Insolvency & Restructuring group of Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP.

This article has been contributed to the blog by Dave Rosenblat and Mary Angela Rowe.

Bankruptcy courts typically rely on three valuation methods to determine a debtor’s enterprise value: comparable company analysis, precedent transaction analysis, and discounted cash flow analysis.

In a unanimous decision, the New York Court of Appeals stuck a dagger through the heart of bankruptcy estates of failed law firms as it declared that profits earned on matters that former partners of the failed firm take with them to their new employers are not property of the former firm.  Those profits belong to the new firm that provides the legal services.

Readers may recall that, according to at least one bankruptcy court, chapter 9 debtors are not required to obtain bankruptcy court approval of compromises and settlements.

A foreign (non-U.S.) company can be dragged unwillingly into a U.S. bankruptcy case if the bankruptcy court has “personal jurisdiction” over the company.

Before we offend our fellow law practitioners outside of the United States, we want to emphasize that this blog entry is not about what is “better” – chapter 11 or other bankruptcy laws, U.S.

The Court of Appeal in London today gave judgment in the Waterfall I Appeal, a dispute as to the distribution of the estimated £7 billion surplus of assets in the main Lehman operating company in Europe, Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (LBIE).

LBIE entered administration on 15 September 2008 and has now paid its unsecured creditors 100p for every £1 owed.  The Waterfall I Appeal addressed some of the key issues as to who should receive the surplus, which we discuss below.

Currency Conversion Claims

“…to be my student, you must develop a taste for victory.”

 Pai Mei, Kill Bill

Judge Drain’s recent bench rulings in Momentive Performance Materials in 2014 generated a great deal of controversy in the distressed debt world.  Distressed investors, lenders, and commentators have questioned whether the Momentive rulings will lead to an industry trend in which debtors seek to cram down their secured lenders to take advantage of the ability to do so at below market interest rates.