The United States Supreme Court recently declined to review the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit’s opinion in Momentive Performance Materials Inc. v. BOKF, NA. BOKF and Wilmington Trust, indenture trustees for Momentive’s First Lien Notes and 1.5 Lien Notes (which we’ll refer to as the “Senior Notes”) respectively, each submitted certiorari petitions after the Second Circuit held that they were not entitled to receive make-whole premiums following Momentive’s bankruptcy.

What Is a Make-Whole?

Weil Summer Associate David Rybak contributed to this post

In Momentive Performance Materials, the Second Circuit declined to dismiss as equitably moot the appeals of certain noteholders.

Administrators are statutorily entitled to require a receiver to vacate office (paragraph 41 Schedule B1 Insolvency Act 1986 (“Schedule B1”)). In Promontoria (Chestnut) Ltd vCraig and another [2017] EWHC 2405 (Ch) they did just that, taking steps to remove existing receivers not long after their appointment, claiming the action to be in the interests of all the creditors. On the facts, that decision was not only unreasonable but costs were also awarded personally against the administrators.

Brief facts and arguments

VE Vegas Investors IV LLC and others vs Shinners and others [2018] EWHC 186 Ch

Background

The applicants were creditors of VE Interactive Limited (In administration) (“VE”). VE encountered financial difficulties and its directors sought insolvency advice from insolvency practitioners at Smith and Williamson (“S&W”) and appointed them to advise on and effect a pre-pack sale of VE’s business and assets.

The United States Second Circuit has issued its ruling in the Momentive Performance Materials casesresolving three separate appeals by different groups of creditors of Judge Bricetti’s judgment in the United States District Court of the Southern District of New York, which affirmed

In the recent case of Cherkasov & others v Olegovich [2017] EWHC 756 (Ch) the English courts considered the public policy exception set out in Article 6 Cross Border Insolvency Regulations 2006 (CBIR) and whether security for costs could be ordered against the official receiver of a Russian company (who had obtained recognition in England under CIBR) when he applied for an order for the production of evidence by some of the former managers of a Russian company under section 236 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA).

The English courts have recently wrestled with the Cross Border Insolvency Regulations 2006 (“CBIR”) in a case about the lifting of the automatic stay on proceedings against Korean company STX Offshore & Shipbuilding Co Ltd

Good news: structured dismissals have survived Supreme Court scrutiny. Bad news: dismissals may be harder to structure, given yesterday’s 6-2 decision overruling the Third Circuit in Jevic narrowing the context in which they can be approved. We now have guidance on whether or not structured dismissals must follow the Bankruptcy Code’s priority scheme. The short answer is that they must.

The recent Chancery Division judgment in Re Gracio Property Company Limited [2017] B.C.C 15 (“Gracio”) saw the court make an order for a compulsory liquidation without any winding-up petition having been issued.

The facts