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.

As discussed in a prior blog entry, virtually any amount of property in the United States will enable most foreign entities to commence a case under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.  But once that case is opened, there are a number of challenges that parties may raise to keeping the c

Nothing says “closure” quite like a termination agreement reaffirmed by a bankruptcy court – right?

“…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.