Emory Bankruptcy Developments Journal

Volume 28Issue 1

The Chapter 11 Financial Advisors

Stephen J. Lubben | 28 Emory Bankr. Dev. J. 11 (2011)

It has been observed that large chapter 11 cases have become increasingly “professionalized.” In particular, while debtor’s counsel might once have handled the bulk of the reorganization, the debtor now routinely retains specialized professionals to address specific aspects of its case. This short Article begins the discussion by considering a sample of financial advisors involved in chapter 11 cases filed in 2004

Read More »

Gelding the Lily: How the Bankrupcty Code’s Promotion of Marriage Leaves It Impotent

Tiffany R. Harper | 28 Emory Bankr. Dev. J. 31 (2011)

This Article challenges the logic of limiting benefits in the Code to married debtors and argues that awarding benefits based on marital status reduces the efficacy of the Code as marriage rates continue to decline in the United States. This Article also explores how the availability of these benefits is dictated by individual states’ definitions of marriage and determination of which of their citizens can legally marry. Thus, the reach and force of the Code is further limited by the discrepancy between individual states’ definitions of marriage and DOMA. Thus, the steady decline in marriage rates and the continued rise in nontraditional familial units leave the Code out of step with American society.

Read More »

Indubitably Uncertain: Philadelphia Newspapers and the Role of Valuation Uncertainty in Attempted Cramdown of All-Equity Plans

Anthony Sexton | 28 Emory Bankr. Dev. J. 55 (2011)

Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code allows a debtor to confirm a plan over the objection of impaired creditors. This power, commonly known as “cramdown,” is constrained by the Fair and Equitable Rule. After enactment of the current Bankruptcy Code, one part of that rule has been a general prohibition against cramming down all-equity plans on prepetition secured creditors. But recent case law—specifically Philadelphia Newspapers—provides an opening to debtors who wish to strip away a secured creditor’s lien. This Article demonstrates that such all-equity plans should not be confirmed because valuation uncertainty exposes junior and senior creditors alike to unjustifiable risks that are not present in lien retention plans.

Read More »