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.
An old friend
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 a Court of Appeal decision handed down last week the court considered the interplay between the construction adjudication process on the one hand and the insolvency regime on the other.
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 long awaited new Scottish Insolvency Rules for Company Voluntary Arrangements and Administration (The Insolvency (Scotland) (Company Voluntary Arrangements and Administration) Rules 2018) were laid in Parliament today. The Rules are a negative SI which means they do not need active approval by Parliament and will automatically come into effect as law unless either the Commons or Lords annuls them within a fixed period after they have been laid. The intention is that they will commence on 6 April 2019.
It’s been reported that the board of directors of AIM-listed Patisserie Holdings plc, which owns the Patisserie Valerie chain of cafés, was not aware for almost a month that HMRC had filed a petition at the High Court of England and Wales to wind up its main trading subsidiary, Stonebeach Limited.
Recently, there have been a number of high profile insolvencies hitting the headlines with a number of High Street retailers entering insolvency either by proposing a company voluntary administration (“CVA”) or via another formal insolvency process. With the recent number of high profile insolvencies there has been scrutiny of directors’ duties not only by media but also at government level.
The new special administration regime for private registered providers introduced by the Housing and Planning Act 2016 was brought into force in England and Wales in July 2018. Should we be seeking to introduce an equivalent regime for Scotland?
The new English regime was developed as a reaction to the events surrounding Cosmopolitan Housing Group which suffered financial difficulties in 2012. It introduces the concept of a housing administrator and critically provides for such an administrator to have two objectives.