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?

Must the legal owner of securitised debt and related security disclose in proceedings it brings that it is a bare trustee for the beneficial owner? In addition, is that trustee obliged to join the beneficial owner as a party to those proceedings?

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.

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

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.

Simple retention of title clauses are commonplace and generally effective in contracts for the sale of goods. However, extending their effect to the proceeds of sale of such goods requires careful drafting.

The Court of Appeal has provided some further clarity around the creation and effects of fiduciary obligations in relation to such clauses.[1]

Proceeds of sale clauses

The Residential Tenancies (Amendment) Act 2015 has undoubtedly strengthened the position of tenants and increased the responsibilities and challenges facing receivers appointed by secured lenders over residential investment properties. While the added protections for tenants are to be welcomed, certain provisions of the Act result in relatively onerous obligations on receivers who are already faced with practical difficulties when seeking to deal with and realise the secured asset in accordance with their duties.

The High Court has reiterated that cross-examination will not generally be permitted on an interlocutory application, or where there is no conflict of fact on the affidavits.

In McCarthy v Murphy,^[1] the defendant mortgagor was not permitted to cross-examine the plaintiff (a receiver) or a bank employee who swore a supporting affidavit.

Background

Two recent judgments have brought further clarity in relation to the rights acquirers of loan portfolios to enforce against borrowers: