In Mission Product Holdings, the Supreme Court Endorses “Rejection-as-Breach” Rule and Interprets Broadly the Contract Rights that Survive Rejection

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.

In the recent case of Re M.D.Y. Construction Limited [2018] IEHC 676, an Interim Examiner made an application pursuant to section 541 of the Companies Act 2014 (the “2014 Act”) to have proposals for a scheme of arrangement confirmed by the High Court. Interestingly, the application was made before the Interim Examiner’s appointment had been confirmed by the Court.

Section 541 of the 2014 Act provides, inter alia, that the report of an Examiner shall be set down for approval by the Court as soon as may be after receipt of the report by the Court.

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”).

Since the introduction of The Companies Act 2014, directors have relied on the Summary Approval Procedure as a means of sanctioning certain activities that are otherwise prohibited.

While it has been a welcome development in simplifying financial transactions, directors need to be mindful of the appropriate steps to be taken so they are not leaving themselves open to committing an offence or being personally liable for the debts of a company.

Background

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 High Court has refused a challenge by a liquidator to an invoice discounting agreement entered into by the Company prior to liquidation.

The liquidator argued that the invoice discounting agreement was in fact a loan agreement under which the Bank took a charge over the Company’s book debts. If that was the case, then those funds would be funds in the liquidation and the Bank an unsecured creditor, because the loan agreement was not registered and therefore void as against the liquidator.

The High Court recently rejected an appeal by KBC Bank Ireland (“KBC”) to write down a portion of a debtor couple’s mortgage due to the uncertainty in the ability of the debtors to repay the warehousing portion of the loan. The Personal Insolvency Arrangement (“PIA”) which had been approved by the Circuit Court was upheld.