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.

The High Court of England & Wales considered, in respect of the delayed completion of a solar project, the appropriate end date for liquidated damages under a terminated construction contract.

It is usual and standard for a construction contract to contain a liquidated damages clause. It is also common for a termination clause to be included and it is not unusual for it to be exercised. Strangely, however, it is not clear under English law how these two concepts interact.

All three institutions of the European Union have now approved the EU Preventive Restructuring Framework Directive. This is the EU's first attempt to "harmonise" insolvency laws across the Member States, that have disparate existing legislation. What does the Directive do and what will be its effect in practice?

The Directive

In a noteworthy decision to participants in the energy industry, the High Court of England & Wales examined what constitutes a valid liquidated damages clause in the event of delayed completion of a solar project. And last week in Singapore, the High Court considered the enforceability of liquidated damages provisions on termination of power purchase agreements.

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”).

Yesterday, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (“Board”) and the Federal Deposit Insurance Company (“FDIC”) (together, the “Agencies”) issued feedback and other guidance regarding the resolution plans (or living wills) of 12 global systemically important banks (“GSIBs”). Specifically, the Agencies finalized guidance (Final Guidance) to the eight US GSIBs regarding the firms’ resolution pl

An extract from GRR The European, Middle Eastern and African Restructuring Review 2018

Brief overview of insolvency proceedings

Enhanced by no less than five reforms over the past 10 years, French insolvency law now provides a comprehensive set of tools designed to efficiently handle the legal, economic and financial difficulties that companies are facing. The whole insolvency architecture hinges on the key concept of cessation of payments (ie, inability of the debtor to pay its debts as they fall due with its available assets).

On 28 November 2016 the German Federal Fiscal Court (FFC) (GrS BFH 1/15, published on 8 February 2017) held that the guidance on a reorganisation tax privilege (Reorganization Decree (Sanierungserlass)) issued by the German Federal Ministry of Finance (FMF) in 2003 was invalid. The ruling has created great uncertainty for the restructuring practice in Germany regarding the proper tax treatment of restructuring gains.

The first of three compliance deadlines for US regulations requiring resolution-related amendments to qualified financial contracts is January 1, 2019, and delaying compliance until the subsequent deadlines creates additional risk. Compliance programs may not be able to eliminate this risk due to the scope of contracts to be remediated and the staggered compliance period that looks back to the first compliance date.

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.