Call 855-808-4530 or email GroupSales@alm.com to receive your discount on a new subscription.
While intercreditor agreements (ICAs) are not necessarily the most attention-grabbing of the various loan documents common to large financing transactions, they are nevertheless important, and lack of attention to detail with respect to their provisions could lead to unintended results in any future bankruptcy case.
While intercreditor agreements (ICAs) are not necessarily the most attention-grabbing of the various loan documents common to large financing transactions, they are nevertheless important, and lack of attention to detail with respect to their provisions could lead to unintended results in any future bankruptcy case. For example, in Momentive Performance Materials, Inc. v. BOKF, NA (In re MPM Silicones, L.L.C.) (MPM) –F.3d–, 2017 WL 4700314, Nos. 15-1682 (2nd Cir. Oct.20, 2017), and in In re Energy Future Holdings Corp., 842 F.3d 247 (3d Cir. 2016), the first lien creditors may have assumed that the second lien creditors had agreed to be subordinated and silent during bankruptcy, but the second lien lenders were nonetheless able to participate materially in those cases and to obtain value at the expense of senior creditors, primarily because the pertinent sections in the applicable ICAs were not sufficiently clear and explicit.
By Carl E. Black and Jonathan Noble Edel
Recognizing the potential consequences, companies in Chapter 11 bankruptcy often try to reduce employee uncertainty by seeking authority from the bankruptcy court. The Bankruptcy Code, however, imposes a variety of limitations on the ability of a debtor-employer to provide certain types of compensation and benefits to “insiders,” a term that is broadly defined in the Bankruptcy Code.
By Michael L. Cook
“[A] secured creditor [has no] affirmative obligation under the automatic stay to return a debtor’s [repossessed] collateral to the bankruptcy estate immediately upon notice of the debtor’s bankruptcy,” the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held on Oct. 28, 2019 in In re Denby-Peterson.
By Rudolph J. Di Massa Jr. and Jarret P. Hitchings
The assumption that bankruptcy can’t relieve a borrower of student loan obligations is incorrect, however a debtor must provide compelling evidence that an undue hardship will result if the debtor is required to repay the loan.
By Peter Janovsky
A debtor’s goal in a Chapter 11 Bankruptcy is to confirm a “plan of reorganization.” Creditors usually have the right to vote for or against a plan, and in some cases, a plan can be confirmed over the objection of one or more classes of creditors. This is called a “cram-down.” The Bankruptcy Code’s rules governing cram-down are complex and differ for secured and unsecured classes of creditors. This article shows how bankruptcy courts have ruled on a particular method of cram-down known as a “dirt-for-debt” plan.