Check out the latest news from Financial Poise. Don’t miss out on our upcoming live webinars! View the full newsletter here.

(posted 11 hours 35 min ago)

In “RADIO SHACK BANKRUPTCY WATCH: Enter Chief Revitalization Officer,” the Editorial Staff of Commercial Bankruptcy Investor discusses the person and the turnaround task of Radio Shack’s important new executive appointment.”
Read the full article here or visit to learn more.

(posted 11 hours 37 min ago)

Almost two weeks ago now, the Delaware Supreme Court handed down its decision over J.P. Morgan's mistaken termination statement in the General Motors bankruptcy. (Note to Google Chrome users like me -- the link may not work; try a different web browser.)  I think they got it right, but to understand why, one obviously needs to know the facts. Melissa Jacoby has blogged about the case (especially) here and here. As Melissa explains in more detail in the former post, the case revolves a mistaken Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) filing by JPMorgan Chase. 
To really stylize the facts, there were two loans from JPMorgan Chase to General Motors. Let's call them Loan A and Loan B. Both loans were secured. Loan A was being paid off. Acting on behalf of JPMorgan Chase, lawyers for General Motors were instructed to file a termination statement in the UCC records. Because of a slip-up in the paperwork, termination statements were filed for both Loan A and Loan B. At the time General Motors entered bankruptcy, Loan B was still outstanding in the amount of $1.5 billion, meaning that if the termination statement is effective JPMorgan Chase would be unsecured in the General Motors bankruptcy.

Credit Slips
(posted 12 hours 24 min ago)

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

The post Protected: Get a better reaffirmation agreement appeared first on Bankruptcy Blogger.

Los Angeles Bankruptcy Blog
(posted 17 hours 24 min ago)

This is the second of two posts on Saracheck v. Crown Heights House of Glatt, Inc., a recent decision from the Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Iowa regarding an avoidance action against food distributor, Crown Heights House of Glatt, Inc. commenced in the chapter 7 bankruptcy case of Agriprocessors, Inc. Our prior post covered the court’s fraudulent transfer analysis in which the court, among other things, declined to find that the debtor’s transfers to Crown Heights constituted actual fraud. In essence, the court implied, “we have no beef with that!” But the trustee also sought to avoid the transfers as preferences under section 547 of the Bankruptcy Code. Today’s post focuses on the court’s preference analysis and, specifically, its contribution to the “remains unpaid” new value debate.

(posted 17 hours 52 min ago)

Joost Geginat has joined AlixPartners as a managing director and will help build the consulting firm’s turnaround and restructuring presence in Switzerland. Mr. Geginat, who will be based in Zurich, most recently worked as a managing partner of the Southeast Asia office of Roland Berger Strategy Consultants. He focuses on reorganizations, portfolio optimizations and corporate strategies.
Michael S. Haynes has rejoined Gardere Wynne Sewell as a partner in the law firm’s bankruptcy and business reorganization practice. Mr. Haynes, who left Gardere for Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld in 2011, focuses on oil and gas matters in financial workouts and restructuring. He has represented bankruptcy trustees, debtors, creditors and other parties in bankruptcy cases. Bankruptcy Beat
(posted 17 hours 54 min ago)

After filing bankruptcy, there are two main scenarios when you will need to go to court after you file bankruptcy.  While there are others, those are less common and not mentioned in this article.      
1. Meeting of Creditors

Fresno Bankruptcy Law Blog
(posted 19 hours 23 min ago)

If we hope to achieve pay equality and see more women in leadership positions, women need to ask for what they believe they deserve, and companies must change ingrained attitudes toward those who do so.

(posted 19 hours 39 min ago)

In a 28 page opinion released October 20, 2014 in the Trump Entertainment Resorts case (Bank. D. Del. 14-12103), Judge Kevin Gross of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court provided a thorough analysis of the ability of a debtor to reject a collective bargaining agreement pursuant to 11 U.S.C § 1113.  Judge Gross’s opinion is available here (the “Opinion”).
My colleague, Carl Neff, provided a summary of the Trump Entertainment Resorts bankruptcy here.
In this case, the debtors petitioned the Court to terminate the collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) between UNITE HERE Local 54 (the “Union”) and Trump Taj Mahal Associates LLC, which operated the casino the Taj Majal.  The Opinion lays out a history of attempts by the debtors to engage the Union to revise the CBA in an effort to cut costs and keep the Taj Mahal open.  Opinion at *6-7.  In the Court’s words, the debtors “stood on their heads to negotiate and were rebuffed time and time again.”  Opinion at *26.

(posted 20 hours 37 min ago)