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 BTI 2014 LLC v. Sequana SA & Ors [2019], the Court of Appeal upheld the High Court decision that dividends can be challenged as transactions defrauding creditors under the Insolvency Act 1986.
In BTI 2014 LLC v. Sequana SA & Others [2019], the Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the High Court that dividends can be challenged as transactions defrauding creditors under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the '1986 Act').
The first instance decision:
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.
We summarise the key legislative changes planned by government relating to insolvency and corporate governance and focus on what they mean for investors, including the private equity community
The rules on contingent assets are broadly as for last year but there are developments to note. Recertification can take longer than expected if there have been changes in relation to an asset.
Trustees and sponsors should be preparing for the recertification of contingent assets that are to remain in place with a view to levy advantage for the 2018/19 year. If there have been changes in relation to a contingent asset, recertification may take materially longer than otherwise.
With residential leasehold law in the spotlight, landlords should be aware of a recent court case which focused upon the method of calculating the premium payable for a residential lease extension.
What is a freezing order?
The purpose of a freezing order is to preserve the defendant's assets until judgment can be enforced. It operates by granting an injunction prohibiting the defendant (or anyone on his behalf) from disposing of identified assets. Legally, it does not operate as security over the assets.
Taylor v Van Dutch Marine Holding Ltd