This Part of the 2023 edition of R+I In Brief provides key industry and sector insights relating to the restructuring space over the past year. These hot topics include:

Greylag Goose Leasing 1410 Designated Activity Company v P.T. Garuda Indonesia Ltd

In a decision that appears to be the first of its kind, the NSW Court of Appeal has found that a national airline should be afforded foreign State immunity against a winding up application.

Key points:

Make-whole clauses (also known as prepayment premiums, call premiums or call protection) are provisions in financing transactions that require the borrower to make a specified payment to the lender if a loan is prepaid before the scheduled maturity. This payment is typically made by the borrower as a lump sum upon early termination and is designed to compensate the lender for the loss of the anticipated yield that lenders expect when providing (or committing to provide) the financing over a specified term.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) Chair Martin Gruenberg gave remarks to the Cities for Financial Empowerment Fund 2023 Bank On National Conference yesterday in which he said that the FDIC “shares the Bank On movement’s commitment to advancing Americans’ economic inclusion in the banking system.”

Introduction

In a previous article, 'In case of emergency: Using emergency power provisions to appoint a voluntary administrator' we discussed the use of emergency powers in a company’s constitution to appoint a voluntary administrator to a company, as well as the use of court assistance to cure defects in an appointment.

In years past defaulting lender mechanics in a subscription credit facility may have been viewed as boiler plate language and, in most cases, the relevant provisions have not received much attention. In light of recent events in the banking industry, defaulting lender provisions have gained some renewed attention. In this article we take a look at the current general state of defaulting lender provisions and the impacts on the lender and borrower.

What Happened

In a ruling issued just yesterday, MOAC Mall Holdings LLC v. Transform Holdco LLC et al., 598 U.S. ----, 2023 WL 2992693 (2023) (“MOAC”), the United States Supreme Court (the “Supreme Court”) held that Bankruptcy Code section 363(m) is not jurisdictional in terms of appellate review of asset sale orders, but rather, that such section only contains limitations on the relief that may be afforded on appeal. Section 363(m) of the Bankruptcy Code is often relied upon by purchasers of assets in a bankruptcy case as providing finality to any sale order.

High Court's Landmark Decisions Clarify the Position for Creditors and Liquidators in Insolvency Proceedings