Last year, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Merit, unanimously ruling that a buyout transaction between private parties did not qualify for “safe harbor” protection under Bankruptcy Code section 546(e), on the basis that a “financial institution” acted as an intermediary in the overarching transaction.

On March 18, 2019, Judge Stuart M. Bernstein of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York issued a decision enforcing a mortgage lender’s claim for a prepayment premium (a/k/a make-whole or yield maintenance premium) notwithstanding the lender’s prepetition acceleration of the loan due to the debtor’s default.

We are all accustomed to seeing change of control as a mandatory prepayment event, if not an event of default, under subscription line facilities. Even the strongest sponsors accept that a lender’s analysis of a transaction is based on the current management of the fund, such that any change in control should trigger at least the right to prepayment and cancellation. While there are often points for negotiation, this premise is almost universal.

In the recent decision of Re M.D.Y. Construction Ltd [2018] IEHC 676 the Examiner sought to have proposals for a scheme of arrangement confirmed by the High Court pursuant to section 541 of the Companies Act 2014 (the "Act"). The most interesting feature of the case was that the scheme of arrangement was proposed for approval by the Interim Examiner before his appointment was confirmed by the High Court.

Arrangement to be approved the day after application to confirm appointment

On November 30, 2018, Judge Nelson S. Román of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a decision affirming the dismissal of certain claims brought by senior secured creditors against junior secured creditors concerning the alleged breach of standstill and turnover provisions in an intercreditor agreement that governed the creditors’ relationship as creditors with recourse to common collateral. SeeIn re MPM Silicones, LLC, No. 15-CV-2280 (NSR), 2018 WL 6324842 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 30, 2018) (“Momentive”).

The recent decision of the Court of Appeal in The Governor and Company of the Bank of Ireland v O'Grady & Anor 2018 IECA 180 has confirmed that where anapplication for summary judgment is made, a defendant must establish that he has "an arguable defence" to the claim if proceedings are to be remitted to plenary hearing.

Background Facts

Provider Beware! Bankruptcy Payment Order May Be Required to Pay a Bankrupt's Pension to Official Assignee

Welcome to day 3 of our '12 Days of Christmas' series. Today we look back on the effect of bankruptcy on a personal pension policy.

Introduction

On November 8, 2018, Judge Vyskocil of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York issued a decision dismissing the involuntary petition that had been filed against Taberna Preferred Funding IV, Ltd. (“Taberna”), a non-recourse CDO, thus ending a nearly seventeen-month-long saga that was followed closely by bankruptcy practitioners and securitization professionals alike. SeeTaberna Preferred Funding IV, Ltd. v. Opportunities II Ltd., et. al., (In re Taberna Preferred Funding IV, Ltd.), No. 17-11628 (MKV), 2018 WL 5880918, at *24 (Bankr.

In the matter of Mouldpro International Limited (In Liquidation) and in the matter of The Companies Acts 1963 – 2005 the Court of Appeal reduced the fees of the liquidator in respect of three of the four periods of the six-year liquidation of Mouldpro International Limited ("Mouldpro"), finding that the hours claimed for were "neither reasonable nor necessary".