• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
Harvard Law School Bankruptcy Roundtable

Harvard Law School Bankruptcy Roundtable

  • Blog
  • About Us
  • Coverage-in-Depth
    • Crypto-Bankruptcy
    • Purdue Pharma Bankruptcy
    • Texas Two-Step and the Future of Mass Tort Bankruptcy
  • Subscribe
  • Show Search
Hide Search

Financial Experts in Chapter 11 Bankruptcies: Unique Situations from Common Assignments

By Allyn Needham, Shipp, Needham & Durham, LLC

needhamWhen disagreements arise in Chapter 11 bankruptcies, debtor and/or creditors’ counsel may seek financial experts to provide information relative to their positions. While engagements of economic experts may cover a broad spectrum of analyses, these engagements generally fall into two areas: determining the appropriate interest rate for the repayment of a secured claim and the liquidation and/or fair market value of certain assets or the bankrupt business as a whole.

The assessment of interest rates and appraising the value of a business are assignments not limited to bankruptcy work alone. Most financial experts are familiar with the methods required to perform these tasks. However, even in the application of these basic analyses, Chapter 11 bankruptcy may present unusual assignments.

This article discusses two unique situations that may arise from common assignments. The first is the application of the cramdown interest rate model when a creditor makes an 1111(b) election. An 1111(b) election allows an under secured creditor to be paid its total allowed claim (both secured and unsecured). This impacts the interest rate and its application toward retirement of the claim. The second considers the concept that the “highest bidder may not be the best bidder” when selling a bankrupt business. The best bid may not be the highest bid due to differing prices, terms, contingencies and impact on the local economy (e.g. closing a business or location) in the competing bids.

To read the full article see here.

Written by:
Editor
Published on:
July 28, 2015

Categories: Financial Firms and Safe HarborsTags: Allyn Needham, Needham & Durham

Primary Sidebar

Categories

Recent Posts

  • Bankruptcy Law’s Doctrinal Evolution: An Empirical Study July 1, 2025
  • Judge Goldblatt Reconsiders What Constitutes“Consent” Post Purdue Pharma June 24, 2025
  • The Backstop Party June 17, 2025

View by Subject Matter

363 sales Anthony Casey Bankruptcy Bankruptcy administration Bankruptcy Courts Bankruptcy Reform Chapter 11 Chapter 15 Claims Trading Cleary Gottlieb Comparative Law Corporate Governance COVID-19 cramdown David Skeel Derivatives DIP Financing Empirical FIBA Financial Crisis fraudulent transfer Jared A. Ellias Jevic Johnson & Johnson Jones Day Mark G. Douglas Mark Roe plan confirmation Priority Purdue Pharma Purdue Pharma bankruptcy restructuring Safe Harbors Schulte Roth & Zabel Sovereign Debt SPOE Stephen Lubben Structured Dismissals Supreme Court syndicated Texas Two-Step Trust Indenture Act Valuation Weil Gotshal Workouts

Footer

Harvard Law School Bankruptcy Roundtable

1563 Massachusetts Ave,
Cambridge, MA 02138
Accessibility | Digital Accessibility | Harvard Law School

Copyright © 2023 The President and Fellows of Harvard College

Copyright © 2025 · Navigation Pro on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in