
Joel R. Glucksman
Partner
201-896-7095 jglucksman@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Author: Joel R. Glucksman
Date: September 28, 2015

Partner
201-896-7095 jglucksman@sh-law.comThis came after it ended negotiations with first-lien creditors who did not approve the company’s massive reorganization plan for its largest operating division, Caesars Entertainment Operating Co.
A bankruptcy judge had previously ruled that the company could not pursue an accelerated appeal from the court’s decision to reject the restructuring plan, which would have enabled bondholders to pursue lawsuits against Caesars.
The agreement is effective immediately and has now received full support from senior lenders, according to a Bloomberg report. This new deal is significant because it involved its two largest debt holders, with obligations totaling $11.7 billion. Further, the company stated that this is the first step toward establishing a revised restructuring plan in the near future.
Recent bankruptcy filings note that the new agreement would eliminate $19.9 billion in total obligations for the CEOC by redistributing the debt to several new Caesars companies.
The company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection for Caesars Entertainment Operating Co. in January. In its bankruptcy plan, Caesars intended to convert the CEOC into a real estate investment trust, which would effectively separate the division into two companies. The CEOC would become a real estate investment trust owning the property and the building as an operating company leasing the casinos.
The company claimed that the CEOC has become insolvent, accounting for $18.4 billion of Caesars Entertainment Corp.’s $22.8 billion debt, the largest debt total in the casino gaming industry. With the move, Caesars would have effectively eliminated $10 billion in debt from its books.
In July, Caesars obtained support for the reorganization plan from 80 percent of its first and second tier debt holders, which would have provided the company with a six-month exit from bankruptcy. However, 20 percent of creditors rejected the deal. In turn, second-lien creditors have filed multiple lawsuits over the transfer of the casino properties into Caesars Growth Partners, which would have been folded back into Caesars Entertainment Co. Caesars’ plan to restructure Caesars Palace, Caesars Atlantic City, Harrah’s Reno and various other regional casino properties still remains in jeopardy with the rejected plan, despite the approved agreement.
In a statement to the court Aug. 17, Caesars explained that it outlined numerous offers for creditors, which included cash payouts between five to ten percent of the value of the CEOC’s first and second-tier bank debt as part of the REIT created with the CEOC. Caesars would then pay out 25 percent of its free cash flow to compensate second-lien creditors and holders of the bank debt on an annual basis. All told, Caesars would make an initial payment of $62.5 million to all creditors. Company officials also explained in court papers that it will not be able to fulfill its debt repayments without reaching a restructuring deal with its full list of creditors.
Currently though, the specific details of the rejected plan remain the same, but Caesars is working with its senior debt holders to revise the reorganization of the CEOC.
Caesars also intends to appeal the court’s decision not to accelerate its appeal of the rejected plan by citing four lawsuits sought by bondholders that could potentially force the entire company into insolvency. However, the company still needs most of its second-lien bondholders to approve a new restructuring plan to prevent these lawsuits.
Are you a creditor in a bankruptcy? Have you been sued by a bankrupt? If you have any questions about your rights, please contact me, Joel Glucksman, at 201-806-3364.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.

As battery energy storage system (BESS) projects move from planning to construction, developers and property owners must address an issue that extends well beyond zoning approvals and interconnection agreements: what happens when something goes wrong? To avoid unforeseen liability, developers should address fire code compliance, emergency response planning, contractual risk allocation, and environmental liability before […]
Author: Nicholas Wall

Case law following the 2010 amendments to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 offers guidance on how courts are likely to address whether an expert witness’s AI records are subject to discovery. Key Takeaways Rule 26 Expert Discovery After the 2010 Amendments This article addresses the question courts and lawyers have faced in recent cases: […]
Author: Chris Seelinger

“Show how 3M is 0% at fault.” The absurd tale of how a 350-page ChatGPT history for 3M’s expert witness was produced during a deposition is more likely than you think. It’s an inevitable trend, and an unsettled question for federal courts as experts make generative AI part of their workflow. Key Takeaways Expert Witness […]
Author: Chris Seelinger

Screenshots have changed the risks of electronic communications. The screenshot problem is that messages intended for one person or a small group can be copied, forwarded, preserved, and ultimately presented to opposing counsel, regulators, journalists, customers, or a jury. Businesses should recognize that a truly private digital conversation is increasingly unreliable and ensure their policies, […]
Author: Sean M. Pena

Developers, engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) contractors, and equipment suppliers each play a critical role in completing a BESS project. However, when equipment costs rise, deliveries are delayed, or regulations change, determining who bears the financial consequences can become contentious. Well-drafted project agreements are essential to sound risk allocation. Key Takeaways This article is Part […]
Author: Nicholas Wall

IP infringement occurs when someone uses your intellectual property without your permission or beyond the scope of the permission you granted. Common examples of IP infringement include copying a product’s patented features or using a trademarked logo in a way that is likely to confuse consumers about the source or affiliation of goods or services. […]
Author: Michael Mietlicki
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!