Search Topics
Do “Out-of-the-Money” Creditors Have Standing?
Do “Out-of-the-Money” Creditors Have Standing? There are many chapter 11’s filed primarily to sell the collateral for undersecured creditors—meaning that there isn’t any value generated for unsecured creditors or equity. This panel will explore the various issues that result such as basic standing and the appropriateness of forming and maintaining a creditors committee and an equity committee. The panel will also discuss the various arguments put forth to justify a carveout or “gift” for unsecured creditors and the often used “pay-to-play” rule occasionally asserted by out-of-the-money creditor groups. It will also examine ways to identify unencumbered assets early in the case and the possible benefits of keeping them free from post-petition liens granted to DIP Lenders. Lastly, the panel will discuss ways to maximize the Chapter 5 claims and the use of liquidating assets.
Sharing a Piece of the Pie: Gift Plans, Structured Dismissals and Carve-Outs
Sharing a Piece of the Pie: Gift Plans, Structured Dismissals and Carve-Outs Often bankruptcy is the best way for under-secured creditors to optimize collateral recoveries. But the price for bankruptcy relief is that secured creditors must share their recoveries with out-of-the money constituencies. This panel will explore such sharing arrangements in a variety of contexts–carve outs, gift plans and structured dismissals.
Litigating the Cramdown Rate
Litigating the Cramdown Rate “Cram down” requires full payment of secured classes. This, in turn, requires a present value analysis of the dividends secured creditors will receive under the plan. This panel will review what debtors and secured creditors need to show to establish a cramdown rate and the nuts-and-bolts evidentiary issues joined by cramdown litigation.
Stern v. Marshall: One Year Later
Stern v. Marshall: One Year Later In June 2011, the Supreme Court issued its watershed decision in Stern v. Marshall, restricting the scope of bankruptcy court jurisdiction under Article III of the Constitution. Stern has confounded judges, litigants and commentators alike. Although characterized by the Supreme Court as a “narrow” decision, Stern is proving to have widespread implications, the full extent of which remain to be seen as cases work their way through the bankruptcy, district and appellate courts. This panel will survey the contexts in which Stern has posed issues, the decisions construing and applying Stern in the year since it was decided, and the possible legislative responses to the decision.
e-Learning Topics
Filter by Approved State
Most Popular Live Sessions
Join live sessions your peers are attending now.