A critical bankruptcy litigation issue has finally been resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court. Until recently, litigants had been faced with the dilemma of whether to immediately appeal a denial with prejudice of a request for stay relief or wait until the underlying matter had been fully adjudicated. Given the uncertainty, parties remained unsure if they risked losing the ability to challenge the denial of stay relief by a bankruptcy court if they waited to appeal. Now it is clear that they will. In Ritzen Group v. Jackson Masonry, 589 U.S.
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.
Even under the most sympathetic of circumstances, courts are charged with respecting the integrity of deadlines and employing a cool, impartial approach to everyone, including the most desperate of late claimants.
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.
Intercreditor agreements--contracts that lay out the respective rights, obligations and priorities of different classes of creditors--play an increasingly important role in corporate finance in light of the continued prevalence of complex capital structures involving various levels of debt. When a company encounters financial difficulties, intercreditor agreements become all the more important, as competing classes of creditors seek to maximize their share of the company's limited assets.
Fraudulent conveyance litigation arising from failed leveraged buyout transactions is frequently pursued in bankruptcy proceedings as the sole source of recovery for creditors. Targets of these actions typically include those parties who received the proceeds generated by the LBO, including the debtor’s former shareholders.
Section 365(a) of the Bankruptcy Code is a powerful tool which enables a debtor to reject certain contracts it finds unnecessary or burdensome to its reorganization.
Reprinted with permission from the September 14, 2017 issue of The Legal Intelligencer. © 2017 ALM Media Properties, LLC. Further duplication without permission is prohibited. All rights reserved.
On January 17, 2017, in a long-awaited decision in Marblegate Asset Management, LLC v. Education Management Finance Corp.,1 the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that Section 316 of the Trust Indenture Act ("TIA") does not prohibit an out of court restructuring of corporate bonds so long as an indenture's core payment terms are left intact.