Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Cramdown Interest Rates in Chapter 11
In Till v. SCS Credit Corp., 541 U.S. 465 (2004), the U.S. Supreme Court applied a formula to determine the appropriate cramdown interest rate with respect to the treatment of secured claims in a Chapter 13 case ' holding that the appropriate interest rate is determined by taking a risk-free base rate, such as the prime rate or the Treasury rate, and adding a risk premium of between 1% and 3% to reflect the repayment risks unique to the particular debtor. However, Till left an unanswered question about how to determine an applicable cramdown interest rate for allowed secured claims in Chapter 11 cases.
Since Till , courts have relied on language contained in footnote 14 in Till as providing guidance as to how such a rate should be determined in Chapter 11 cases. Footnote 14 in substance states that while there is no readily apparent Chapter 13 cramdown interest rate because there is no free market of Chapter 13 cramdown lenders, the same may not be true in Chapter 11 because lenders advertise financing for Chapter 11 debtors-in-possession. This has opened the door for arguments about the use of market rates to determine cramdown interest rates in Chapter 11 cases. However, questions still remain over how and when to apply either a market interest rate or formula based rate in Chapter 11 cases.
Recently, in a bench ruling in In re MPM Silicones, LLC, issued on Aug. 26, 2014 (No. 14-22503-RDD (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Aug. 26, 2014) and later corrected on Sept. 9, 2014 (see In re MPM Silicones, LLC, No. 14-22503, 2014 WL 4436335 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Sept. 9, 2014)) (Momentive ), the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (USBJ Drain), held, among other things, that the debtors could cram down their plan of reorganization on their secured lenders under section 1129(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Bankruptcy Code by providing them with replacement notes paying a below-market interest rate using a formula approach to calculate the applicable interest rate.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?