Answers / Restructuring

Why do you always need a credible 'Plan B', and how does the threat of insolvency strengthen a consensual restructuring?

A core Restructuring interview question — asked in analyst and associate interviews across IB, PE, and the Big 4.

THE SHORT ANSWER

A consensual out-of-court deal needs every key creditor to agree, which gives hold-outs leverage. A credible Plan B — a formal process like StaRUG, Schutzschirm, or insolvency that can bind dissenters via cram-down — changes the negotiation: stakeholders compare the consensual offer not to the status quo but to their likely recovery in that formal alternative. If a hold-out's recovery in insolvency is clearly worse, the threat is what makes them accept the consensual deal. So advisers prepare the formal route in parallel (the dual-track logic), credibly: model the insolvency recovery, line up DIP/financing, and be genuinely ready to file. The discipline is that the threat only works if it's real — a bluff that everyone knows you won't execute gives away the leverage.

WHAT INTERVIEWERS LISTEN FOR

  • Consensual deals give hold-outs leverage
  • Plan B (StaRUG/insolvency) can cram down dissenters
  • Stakeholders compare offer to formal-process recovery
  • Threat must be credible and genuinely prepared

COMMON MISTAKES

  • Negotiating with no fallback
  • Bluffing an insolvency threat you can't execute
  • Not modeling the alternative recovery

Reading isn't the same as answering under pressure.

Interviewers don't hand you the model answer — you deliver yours on a clock. Practice this and 1,000+ questions with AI feedback on every answer.

TRY QUICKFIRE →Or train full Restructuring case simulations →

RELATED QUESTIONS