Section 510(b) of the Bankruptcy Code provides a mechanism designed to preserve the creditor/shareholder risk allocation paradigm by categorically subordinating most types of claims asserted against a debtor by equity holders. However, courts do not always agree on the scope of the provision in attempting to implement its underlying policy objectives. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently examined the broad reach of section 510(b) in In re Linn Energy, 936 F.3d 334 (5th Cir. 2019).
In In re Ditech Holding Corp., 2019 WL 4073378 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Aug. 28, 2019), the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York addressed several objections to confirmation of a chapter 11 plan that proposed to sell home mortgage loans "free and clear" of certain claims and defenses of the homeowner creditors, contrary to a provision of the Bankruptcy Code—section 363(o)—which was enacted in 2005 to prevent free and clear sales of certain claims and defenses relating to consumer credit agreements.
Whether because of, or in spite of, the proliferating case law it is hard to say, but the issues in, underlying and surrounding third-party releases in Chapter 11 plans just continue to arise with incessant regularity, albeit without a marked increase in clarity. We have posted about those issues here six times in little more than two years,[1] and it is fair to assume that this post will not be the last.
Prepayment premiums (also referred to as make-whole premiums) are a common feature in loan documents, allowing lenders to recover a lump-sum amount if a borrower pays off loan obligations prior to maturity, effectively compensating lenders for yield that they would have otherwise received absent prepayment. As a result of the widespread use of such provisions, three circuit courts of appeal – the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Second, Third and Fifth Circuit – have recently had to address the enforceability of prepayment provisions in bankruptcy.
A new wave of bankruptcy filings for leveraged oil and gas companies has begun and this time it may involve more prepacks and less optimism. Beginning in late 2015 and continuing through 2017, downtown Houston was filled with bankruptcy lawyers. Highly leveraged exploration and production (or E&P) companies had become crippled by falling oil prices and the resulting impact on the value of their producing and non-producing reserves in their borrowing bases.
Currently there are no clear laws specifically addressing the means for addressing insolvency issues for debtors and creditors involved in the Cannabis industry. Like the industry itself, the laws are evolving. Using a Cannabis grower business as an example, at this time the Federal Court system is not available to address such entities insolvency issues.
In MicroBilt Corporation v. Ranger Specialty Income Fund, L.P. et al. (In re Princeton AlternativeIncome Fund,LP), Case No. 3:18-CV-16557 (D.N.J. Nov. 27, 2019), the District Court for the District of New Jersey recently affirmed a bankruptcy court's decision to appoint a chapter 11 trustee, without conducting a traditional evidentiary hearing. The holding reinforces that a bankruptcy court has broad discretion to grant extreme remedies in a case.
Facts
Ultra Petroleum entered bankruptcy in significant financial distress, but then – thanks to a spike in oil prices – the debtor’s fortunes changed almost literally overnight.
The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on December 3, 2019 in Simon E. Rodriguez v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., 18-1269 (Sup. Ct.).
A number of recent structurings of investment-grade rated securitizations of oil and gas wells are sparking conversations in the U.S. upstream oil and gas industry about this relatively new, structured finance product. Although structured finance products are not new to the industry, interest in these products has been rekindled as exploration and production (“E&P”) companies seek alternatives to the more traditional reserve-based loans, equity financing, and bond issuances.