On October 20, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a decision which, among other things,[1] affirmed the lower courts’ holding that certain noteholders were not entitled to payment of a make-whole premium. The Second Circuit held that the make-whole premium only was due in the case of an optional redemption, and not in the case of an acceleration brought about by a bankruptcy filing.
On October 20, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued an important decision regarding the manner in which interest must be calculated to satisfy the cramdown requirements in a chapter 11 case.[1] The Second Circuit sided with Momentive’s senior noteholders and found that “take back” paper issued pursuant to a chapter 11 plan should bear a market rate of interest when the market rate can be ascerta
On October 3, 2017, Bankruptcy Judge Laurie Selber Silverstein of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware issued a decision holding that the Bankruptcy Court had constitutional authority to approve third-party releases in a final order confirming a plan of reorganization.
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
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
Key points
Key Points
- Directors cannot file a notice of intention to appoint (NoI) without a ‘settled intention’ to appoint an administrator
- NoIs cannot be used where there is no qualifying floating charge holder (QFCH)
- The judgment has implications for validity of appointments where requirements not met
The Facts
Key Points
- Claims against Kaupthing could not be pursued in the English courts
- No implied restriction on jurisdictional effect under the Winding-up Directive
- Position analogous to Judgments Regulation and Insolvency Regulation
The Facts