“Too Many Hats”: The Peculiar Problems and Challenges that Arise When an Equity Sponsor/ Secured Lender Is a DIP Lender/Stalking-Horse Buyer in a Chapter 11 Case
California Judge Explains Why Acevedo Doesn’t Bar Retroactive Orders
Retroactive and nunc pro tunc orders aren’t the same thing, Judge Jaime says. Orders may be retroactive when the power is implied by statute.
New York Judge Nixes $2.45 Billion in DIP Financing as a Sub Rosa Plan
Even though the price and terms were ‘entirely fair,’ Bankruptcy Judge Garrity disapproved DIP financing that would have locked in the right of controlling shareholders to purchase new stock at a 20% discount.
Tenth Circuit BAP Says that Section 364(d)(1) Can’t Be Used for Priming Lien in a Plan
In a SARE case, the BAP says that the bankruptcy court cannot deny a lift-stay motion without finding that confirmation is reasonably possible in a reasonable time.
Court:
Seventh Circuit: Reclamation Claims Are Subordinate to DIP Financing
The 2005 amendments to Section 546(c) departed from state law under UCC § 2-702 by creating a federal rule making reclamation claims subordinate to existing secured claims and DIP financing.
Court: