Fulltext Search

Contrary to the Bankruptcy Court’s ruling, the District Court concluded that California's liquidated damages statute does not apply to the default interest rate provision.

This is a favorable decision for commercial secured lenders. Although the ruling is not controlling on other bankruptcy courts as it is a trial court level ruling, courts may certainly consider it when presented with similar issues.

In In re 1111 Myrtle Avenue Group, LLC (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2019), a New York bankruptcy court held that a default interest rate provision of 7 percent was enforceable and not a penalty against a debtor, which retained significant equity postbankruptcy.

Background

In re Altadena Lincoln Crossing LLC, 2018 Westlaw 3244502 (Bankr. C.D. Cal.), a California bankruptcy court held that a default interest rate provision was an unenforceable penalty under applicable California law because, among other things, the applicable loan agreements did not contain an estimate of the probable costs to the lender resulting from the debtor’s default.

Background

Key Points

  • A binding contract by exchange of email did not arise where parties were simply exploring a potential deal.

  • Sale by auction is often appropriate where an asset is difficult to value.

  • Where no differential treatment of creditors, unfair harm requires that a decision does not withstand logical analysis.

The Facts

Investors may, for reasons outside of their control, find themselves with a financially distressed company in their portfolio and possibly in unfamiliar territory. Consequently, it is not just those investors who actively seek out opportunities within the distressed space who should be mindful of the implications of insolvency processes (most commonly administration which can often also be used as part of a wider restructuring).

Key points

  • Failure to comply with sections 333 and 363 of the Insolvency Act constitutes contempt of court for which a committal order may be obtained.

  • A trustee in bankruptcy should not usually require permission to apply for a committal order.

  • Correct procedure for application confirmed by the court.

Key points

  • Information obtained by compulsion can be shared between officeholders of connected estates (parent/subsidiary)

  • There must, however, be a possibility that there will be a surplus in the subsidiary estate

  • The prospect must be real as opposed to fanciful

The facts

Key points

  • Court reiterated circumstances in which it will sanction a proposed course of action by administrators

  • Requirement that the course of action be “particularly momentous”

  • Court sanctioned proposed settlement in the circumstances

The Facts

Key Points

  • Floating charge is valid even where there are no unencumbered assets at the time it is taken
  • Crystallisation of prior ranking floating charge does not impact enforceability of second ranking floating charge

The Facts