COVID-19 is placing unprecedented strain on all businesses, and insolvency practitioner (“IP”) practices are no exception. Government-imposed restrictions on activities and movement will have a direct impact on the ability to carry on business as usual. There may be fewer employees available (through illness, self-isolation and furloughing), strain placed on remote working capabilities and a limited ability to carry out site visits to deal with cases as usual. Closure of schools and caring responsibilities may also lead to reduced personnel capacity.
COVID-19 and Government-imposed restrictions are placing an unprecedented strain on everyone and businesses and individuals may be facing extreme financial pressure. COVID-19 is impacting businesses throughout the supply chain in most, if not all, sectors. This may mean that clients and debtors are unable to meet their obligations and there may need to be changes as to how these are dealt with. This note aims to provide some guidance to help Insolvency Practitioners (“IPs”) deal with certain practical issues that may arise in active cases.
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.
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.
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):