The economic impact of the COVID-19 coronavirus remains uncertain, but many are preparing for an up-tick in bankruptcies and, in particular, 363 transactions – sales of assets pursuant to Section 363 of the US Bankruptcy Code. Here are some practical steps that can help you prepare for your own 363 process and finding your stalking horse.
Healthcare workers are on the frontline of fighting COVID-19, but directors of companies have an equally important task, that of keeping the wheels turning and helping minimise the damage to the economy and the livelihoods of their employees, and keeping otherwise viable businesses intact for when the crisis passes.
How should directors respond to the fast-moving situation and the challenges posed by assessing and dealing with the impact on the business?
On December 19, 2019, the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held in In re Millennium Lab Holdings II, LLC1that bankruptcy courts have the constitutional authority, well within the constraints of Stern v.
The High Court decision in Re All Star Leisure (Group) Limited (2019), which confirmed the validity of an administration appointment by a qualified floating charge holder (QFCH) out of court hours by CE-Filing, will be welcomed.
The decision accepted that the rules did not currently provide for such an out of hours appointment to take place but it confirmed it was a defect capable of being cured and, perhaps more importantly, the court also stressed the need for an urgent review of the rules so that there is no doubt such an appointment could be made.
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.
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.
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):