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):
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
Speed read
The British government has commenced an airline insolvency review, in the wake of recent high profile airline failures such as Monarch and Air Berlin, and on the premise that changes in the industry have outpaced protection regimes.
The review will focus on two main areas: repatriation of stranded passengers and redress for consumers. There is a desire to minimise repatriation costs falling on the public purse and ensure that consumers have clear avenues of redress.
Merit Management Group, LP v. FTI Consulting, Inc., No. 16-784 (2018)
On 12 December 2017, creditors in the long running special administration of failed stockbroking firm, MF Global UK Limited (“MF Global”), approved a company voluntary arrangement (“CVA”). This case demonstrates the flexibility of the CVA procedure and the role it can play in complex financial services cases.
What is a CVA?
Since May 2002, we have had a regime which ensures that an insolvency proceeding started in one of the EU’s member states is, without further formality, recognised in all other member states (except for Denmark) and which determines the law applicable to such proceedings. That regime is provided for in the EU Regulation on insolvency proceedings (1346/2000/EC) (the EIR).