The June 2013 issue of Baseload included the article “A $400 Million Devil in the Details: The Cautionary Tale of the Chesapeake Par Call.” We published an update to that article in the January 2015 issue. On July 10, 2015, the District Court for the Southern District of New York held that Chesapeake is required to pay the noteholders the make-whole amount.
If repayment of debt is accelerated as a result of bankruptcy, are debtholders eligible to receive a make-whole premium? The answer from an increasing number of courts is, without specific language in the indenture, no. Indentures usually include specific language to protect investors by declaring that upon certain designated “bankruptcy events,” all outstanding securities issued under that indenture become immediately due and payable (without further action from the holders of the securities).
Historically, investment grade debt with a make-whole provision was fairly straightforward. At any time during the life of the instrument, the issuer had the right to redeem the debt. But the price to be paid included the discounted value of the remaining payments of principal and interest over the life of the debt. Because the cost of paying the “make-whole” is often significant, issuers seldom redeem bonds when they are required to pay the make-whole price.
The Grand Court of the Cayman Islands (the Court) recently ruled in favour of Primeo Fund (in official liquidation) (Primeo) in its ongoing representative proceedings with the Additional Liquidator of Herald Fund SPC (in official liquidation) (Herald).
On 4 June 2015 the Cayman Islands Grand Court ruled in favour of Primeo Fund (Primeo), in the ongoing Representative Proceedings between Primeo and Herald Fund SPC (Herald). The Court had to construe section 37(7)(a) of the Companies Law. Although the Court's detailed reasons are still awaited, it is clear from the Court's decision that section 37(7)(a) does not apply to redeeming investors whose shares have been redeemed prior to the commencement of the liquidation.
On May 4, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States issued an opinion regarding a Chapter 13 bankruptcy case from the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (the “First Circuit”).1 The question on appeal was whether debtor Louis Bullard (“Bullard”) could immediately appeal the bankruptcy court’s order denying confirmation of his proposed Chapter 13 payment plan (the “Plan”).2 The Court held that denial of confirmation of a debtor’s plan is not a final, appealable order.3
Case Background
© 2015 Hunton & Williams LLP 1 May 2015 Oak Rock Financial District Court Addresses the Applicable Legal Standard for True Participation Agreements The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York recently applied two tests, the True Participation Test and the Disguised Loan Test, to determine whether agreements were true participation agreements or disguised loans.1 In addition, the District Court noted that the most important question in such a determination is the risk of loss allocation in the transaction, and that if an alleged participant is not subject to the
In Quadrant Structured Products Company, Ltd. v. Vertin, the Delaware Court of Chancery made two key rulings concerning the rights of creditors to bring derivative lawsuits against corporate directors.1 First, the court held that there is no continuous insolvency requirement during the pendency of the lawsuit.
Strike off is the procedure of removing a company from the Register of Companies (the Register) following which the company will cease to exist.
Under the Companies (Guernsey) Law, 2008 (the Companies Law), a company may be struck off in one of three situations:
- if the company is defunct;
- if the company is defaulting; or
- if the company itself applies to be voluntarily struck off.
Strike off by the Registrar of Companies
The Registrar of Companies (the Registrar) has the power pursuant to the Companies (Guernsey) Law, 2008 (the Companies Law) to strike off companies which are either defunct or defaulting.