On November 26, 2019, the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held in Ultra Petroleum Corp. v.

Prepayment premiums (also referred to as make-whole premiums) are a common feature in loan documents, allowing lenders to recover a lump-sum amount if a borrower pays off loan obligations prior to maturity, effectively compensating lenders for yield that they would have otherwise received absent prepayment. As a result of the widespread use of such provisions, three circuit courts of appeal – the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Second, Third and Fifth Circuit – have recently had to address the enforceability of prepayment provisions in bankruptcy.

On 25 September 2019, the Ukrainian Parliament brought into force law No. 112-IX (the “Law“). The purpose of the Law is to correct deficiencies in existing legislation and further promote out-of-court financial restructurings in the jurisdiction. The adoption of the Law comes in light of the high volume of non-performing loans which still exist in Ukraine.

The Law’s key provisions are as follows:

In recent weeks, the dispute in Windstream’s bankruptcy between Windstream and its REIT spinoff Uniti Group over the lease transaction that ultimately led to Windstream’s chapter 11 bankruptcy has continued to escalate with Windstream filing an adversary complaint against Uniti. In its complaint, Windstream seeks to recharacterize the lease as a disguised financing alleging that the lease resulted in a long-term transfer of billions of dollars to Uniti to the detriment of Windstream’s creditors.

Yesterday, in an 8-1 decision, the US Supreme Court held in Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v.

On April 23, 2019, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, in fraudulent transfer litigation arising out of the 2007 leveraged buyout of the Tribune Company,1 ruled on one of the significant issues left unresolved by the US Supreme Court in its Merit Management decision last year.

A cross-practice team led by partner Tom Astle has advised a syndicate of c.75 lenders under a bespoke €1.06bn super priority loan to distressed Croatian food producing and retail giant Agrokor (the “SPFA“) on an English law scheme of arrangement proposed by the company. The scheme of arrangement was approved by 97.92% in number of the lenders under the SPFA, representing 99.99% in value of scheme claims, at the creditors’ meeting earlier this week, and was sanctioned by Mr Justice Fancourt this morning.

Both the First Energy Solutions and PG&E bankruptcies have seen proceedings regarding power purchase and similar agreements (PPAs) that raise this question.

Background

Contracts often contain provisions that enable a party to terminate or modify the contract based on the other party's bankruptcy filing, insolvency or deteriorating financial condition. In general, the Bankruptcy Code renders these types of provisions (sometimes referred to as "ipso facto" clauses) ineffective. Specifically, under section 365(e)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code (emphasis added):

After months of speculation, it is now official : PG&E (both the parent, PG&E Corporation, and its subsidiary, Pacific Gas & Electric Company), having faced extraordinary challenges relating to catastrophic wildfires in 2017 and 2018, has announced that a voluntary bankruptcy filing “is appropriate, necessary and in the best interests of all stakeholders, including wildfire claimants, PG&E’s other creditors and shareholders, and is ultimately the only viable option to restore PG&E’s financial stability to fund ongoing operations and provide safe service to customers.” As

Astaldi, the Italian multinational construction company, filed on Friday (28 September) for concordato in bianco. This is an in-court restructuring proceeding under the Italian Bankruptcy Law, which imposes a standstill period for up to six months. Astaldi’s reference to certain provisions in the Bankruptcy Law indicates that it intends to use the standstill period to prepare for a concordato preventivo filing.