In February 2016, Energy Future Holdings Corp. (“EF”), which obtained confirmation of a chapter 11 plan on December 3, 2015, prevailed at the district court level in related appeals brought by first- and second-lien noteholders of bankruptcy court orders disallowing the noteholders’ claims for make-whole premiums allegedly due under their note indentures. The forum in this hotly contested and long-running dispute has now moved to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

Enforceability of Make-Whole Premiums in Bankruptcy

A recent decision of the Court of Appeal has seemingly halted a trend towards leniency in the High Court in applications for the restriction and disqualification of directors of insolvent companies, particularly where the company has been struck off the register of companies for failing to file annual returns.

The Irish High Court recently, for the first time, recognised and gave effect to a Swiss law insolvency and restructuring process that had been commenced in Switzerland in respect of a Swiss company.

In Del. Trust Co. v. Energy Future Intermediate Holding Co. LLC (In re Energy Future Holdings Corp.), 527 B.R. 178 (Bankr. D. Del. 2015), the bankruptcy court ruled that, even though a chapter 11 debtor repaid certain bonds prior to maturity, a "make-whole" premium was not payable under the plain terms of the bond indenture because automatic acceleration of the debt triggered by the debtor's chapter 11 filing was not a "voluntary" repayment.

Whether a provision in a bond indenture or loan agreement obligating a borrower to pay a “make-whole” premium is enforceable in bankruptcy has been the subject of heated debate in recent years. A Delaware bankruptcy court recently weighed in on the issue in Del. Trust Co. v. Energy Future Intermediate Holding Co. LLC (In re Energy Future Holdings Corp.), 527 B.R. 178 (Bankr. D. Del. 2015).

The High Court has found two former directors of a car dealership in Dublin, Appleyard Motors Limited (In Liquidation) (Appleyard), personally liable to a former customer who paid for but did not receive three vehicles in the weeks leading up to the company’s liquidation. This case is particularly noteworthy as it is only the second time a director has been held personally liable for a company’s debts for reckless trading.

The mainstream media have been trying to predict, on almost a daily basis, the causes of, and the winners and losers (mostly focused on the latter category) resulting from, the current volatility in oil and gas prices.

The High Court and the Supreme Court recently confirmed a Scheme of Arrangement for SIAC Construction Limited (SCL) and certain related companies despite objections from a number of creditors. The creditors claimed that the exclusion of claims for penalties, interest and, in particular, damages not awarded by a certain date and the imposed waiver of subrogated claims was unfairly prejudicial.

Initial Confirmation Hearing

A former director of Custom House Capital Limited (CHC) was recently found by the High Court to have fraudulently misrepresented to an investor that her €145,000 investment in the company was “safe” a year before CHC's collapse.

In March 2010 Ms Tressan Scott entered into a Subordinated Loan Agreement with CHC pursuant to which she loaned the sum of €145,000 to CHC. At the time the agreement was signed, Ms Scott was recovering from treatment for Lymphoma.

The Foley’s/O’Reilly’s bar saga, which played out over a nine month period ending in July 2013, resulted in numerous court applications, three written judgments of the High Court and the appointment at various stages of receivers, interim examiners, examiners and liquidators to the companies involved.

Receivership