We are again reminded that the clear terms of a written contract—even if they might yield a surprising result—will govern. For those who don’t bother to read the “clickwrap” terms and conditions when, for example, signing up for the new online game or entrusting millions in crypto currency, those controlling terms may surprise. Parties in any transaction cannot just assume that the “boilerplate”—whether a make-whole in a note, a subordination provision in a credit agreement, or terms and conditions in a customer agreement—will be acceptable.

A new decision out of the New York state court has added to the recent trend of courts refusing to dismiss legal challenges to priming transactions.

With priming transactions experiencing a resurgence over the past few years, there have been a number of different routes taken by lenders with one goal in mind - Assemble a majority position and exchange, refinance or otherwise abandon their existing positions to move up the capital structure, which in turn helps increase their blended return on their exposure to a borrower and prevents a different configuration of investors from grabbing the “high ground” above them.

Priming transactions have grown in frequency during the pandemic, and with them, new ways to test the limits of credit agreement provisions. In a recent example, lenders to struggling restaurant-supplier TriMark entered into a transaction whereby they provided new money to TriMark, primed non-participating existing lenders, and then amended the existing credit agreement to broaden the contract’s “no-action clause” to make it difficult for non-participating lenders to bring suit under the credit agreement. It didn’t work.

The Delaware Bankruptcy Court recently authorized the sale of La Paloma’s electricity-generating assets “free and clear” of any obligations to surrender compliance certificates under California’s Cap-and-Trade Program. The ruling confirms the viability of Bankruptcy Code section 363 sales as a mechanism to release energy-related assets from certain ongoing environmental obligations.

In a widely anticipated ruling, the Supreme Court in Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp. ruled that bankruptcy courts “may not approve structured dismissals that provide for distributions that do not follow ordinary priority rules without the consent of affected creditors.” In doing so, the Court rejected the Third Circuit’s ruling that the circumstances were an unusual “rare case,” justifying deviation from the ordinary priority rules.

We are again reminded that the clear terms of a written contract—even if they might yield a surprising result—will govern. For those who don’t bother to read the “clickwrap” terms and conditions when, for example, signing up for the new online game or entrusting millions in crypto currency, those controlling terms may surprise. Parties in any transaction cannot just assume that the “boilerplate”—whether a make-whole in a note, a subordination provision in a credit agreement, or terms and conditions in a customer agreement—will be acceptable.