On Aug. 8, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit upheld the right of Kramer Levin’s bondholder clients to seek a receiver for the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (PREPA) — the first appellate court in the history of municipal bankruptcy to do so. The First Circuit reversed U.S. District Judge Laura Taylor Swain, who presides over all proceedings under Title III of the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act (PROMESA). PREPA bondholders alleged that PREPA’s mismanagement had depreciated revenues pledged to them as collateral.
In response to the increasing prevalence of general partner (GP)-led secondary fund restructurings, the Institutional Limited Partners Association (ILPA) has released guidance regarding this practice. The purpose of this guidance is to promote transparency and efficiency in the secondary process.
The ILPA has defined these restructurings as transactions that offer one of the following:
The Supreme Court recently limited the ability of debtors to use contract rejection in bankruptcy to shed unwanted trademark licensees. But the Court acknowledged that the result could change if the trademark licensing agreement had different termination rights. Going forward, parties entering into trademark licensing agreements will need to consider this decision carefully as they negotiate termination rights in the event of a bankruptcy by the licensor.
With the May 1 order, the Commission reaffirms its view that it has concurrent jurisdiction over debtors’ efforts to reject their FERC-jurisdictional contracts in bankruptcy. Further developments in judicial proceedings in the Sixth and Ninth Circuits are expected.
On May 1, 2019, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission denied Pacific Gas and Electric Co.’s requests for rehearing of two commission orders asserting concurrent jurisdiction with bankruptcy courts over the disposition of wholesale power contracts PG&E seeks to reject through bankruptcy.[1]
The Bottom Line
The Bottom Line
The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York entered a decision confirming the applicability of the Court’s bar date order as it relates to a pension fund’s claim for withdrawal liability filed after the bar date, despite the fact that the withdrawal occurred after the deadline for filing proofs of claim.
What Happened?