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.

There is nothing quite like obtaining a new customer or getting a new big sale - the prospect of recurring revenue from a new source, the validation of business strategy, or the culmination of a successful negotiation.

However, there is nothing more disheartening than when a new customer is unable or unwilling to pay forthe product you just shipped or services you just provided. Perhaps there is one thing that is worse, when a long-term customer fails to pay.

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.

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”).

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.

The purpose of bankruptcy is twofold: (1) to provide the party filing for bankruptcy—the “debtor”—with a fresh start, and (2) to fairly distribute the debtor’s non-exempt assets to creditors in accordance with the priority scheme set forth in the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. This may sound relatively simple, but accomplishing these dual objectives can be difficult. One of the challenges in all bankruptcy cases is determining the scope and extent of assets that constitute “property of the estate” which are available for distribution to creditors.

The purpose of bankruptcy is to provide for an orderly process by which a debtor’s assets can be fairly divided and distributed among creditors.

It is also meant to ensure that debtors can start fresh. Not all of a debtor’s assets are available to creditors—the Bankruptcy Code allows a debtor to keep certain assets safe in bankruptcy through various asset exemptions available under both state and federal law. One such exemption is Michigan’s bankruptcy-specific homestead exemption.

On June 4, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court decided the case of Lamar, Archer & Cofrin, LLP v. Appling, No. 16-1215, which dealt with the dischargeability of debt in bankruptcy proceedings. The Court held that a statement about a single asset can be a “statement respecting the debtor’s financial condition” under section 523(a)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Background Facts

In a recent opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (the “Court”) ruled that penalties assessed by the state of Michigan against two debtors, stemming from fraud associated with the wrongful receipt of Michigan unemployment benefits, are non-dischargeable in Chapter 13 bankruptcy pursuant to Bankruptcy Code § 523(a)(2).1

Background Facts