• 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

Taking a Deeper Look into Momentive

By Michael Vitti, Duff & Phelps

Much has been written about Momentive. Nevertheless, some relevant questions are not often addressed, if at all. I recently attempted to answer some of these questions in a recently published article:

How much economic value was taken from the secured creditors if one believes they should have received the market rate of interest?

The answer (almost $200 million) may be higher than some would have expected. This higher than expected number occurs because the cramdown interest rate decreased, while the market interest rate increased, between August 26, 2014 (the date analyzed in the bankruptcy court’s opinion) and October 24, 2014 (the date the debtor emerged from bankruptcy).

Is there a limit to the amount of implied lender’s costs, profits, and fees that should be removed from the market interest rate when determining the cramdown interest rate?

The answer must be “yes.” To demonstrate this point, consider the first lien debt, which was worth approximately $50 million less than face value on August 26 and approximately $140 million less than face value on October 24. Did the lender’s implied costs, fees, and profits almost triple between August 26 and October 24? Not likely. This is perhaps the simplest way to demonstrate the need for a limit.

Could future courts use the same methodology employed in Momentive yet arrive at the market interest rate by making a reasonable change in one or two assumptions?

The answer appears to be “yes.” Use of the historical average spread between the 7 year treasury and prime rate (instead of the 50 basis points used in Momentive) results in the market interest rate as of August 26. Combining that change with an increase in the credit risk premium to the high end of the range referenced by the plurality in Till (300 basis points) results in the market interest rate as of October 24.

The full article is published in NACVA’s QuickRead. Part 1 is available here while Part 2 is available here.

 

Written by:
Editor
Published on:
January 26, 2016

Categories: ValuationTags: Duff & Phelps, Michael Vitti

Primary Sidebar

Categories

Recent Posts

  • Exit Consents in a Liability Management World July 8, 2025
  • Bankruptcy Law’s Doctrinal Evolution: An Empirical Study July 1, 2025
  • Judge Goldblatt Reconsiders What Constitutes“Consent” Post Purdue Pharma June 24, 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