FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS ADVISORY & FINANCIAL REGULATORY GROUP NEWSLETTER JANUARY 10, 2018 ISSUE 1/2018 Financial Regulatory Developments Focus In this week’s newsletter, we provide a snapshot of the principal U.S., European and global financial regulatory developments of interest to banks, investment firms, broker-dealers, market infrastructure providers, asset managers and corporates. Click here if you wish to access our Financial Regulatory Developments website.

FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS ADVISORY & FINANCIAL REGULATORY GROUP NEWSLETTER DECEMBER 21, 2017 Financial Regulatory Developments Focus In this week’s newsletter, we provide a snapshot of the principal US, European and global financial regulatory developments of interest to banks, investment firms, broker-dealers, market infrastructure providers, asset managers and corporates. Click here if you wish to access our Financial Regulatory Developments website.

FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS ADVISORY & FINANCIAL REGULATORY GROUP WEEKLY NEWSLETTER DECEMBER 6, 2017 Financial Regulatory Developments Focus In this week’s newsletter, we provide a snapshot of the principal US, European and global financial regulatory developments of interest to banks, investment firms, broker-dealers, market infrastructure providers, asset managers and corporates. Click here if you wish to access our Financial Regulatory Developments website.

On October 20, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a decision which, among other things,[1] affirmed the lower courts’ holding that certain noteholders were not entitled to payment of a make-whole premium. The Second Circuit held that the make-whole premium only was due in the case of an optional redemption, and not in the case of an acceleration brought about by a bankruptcy filing.

On October 20, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued an important decision regarding the manner in which interest must be calculated to satisfy the cramdown requirements in a chapter 11 case.[1] The Second Circuit sided with Momentive’s senior noteholders and found that “take back” paper issued pursuant to a chapter 11 plan should bear a market rate of interest when the market rate can be ascerta

On October 3, 2017, Bankruptcy Judge Laurie Selber Silverstein of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware issued a decision holding that the Bankruptcy Court had constitutional authority to approve third-party releases in a final order confirming a plan of reorganization.

InIn Re Lexington Hospitality Group, LLC, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky thwarted a lender’s efforts to control whether its borrower could file bankruptcy. As a condition to the loan, the lender mandated that the borrower’s operating agreement have certain provisions that require the affirmative vote of an “Independent Manager” and 75% of the members to authorize a bankruptcy.

The Delaware bankruptcy court recently decided that a debtor could not assign a trademark license absent the consent of the licensor. The court concluded that federal trademark law and the terms of the license precluded assignment without consent. Because the debtor could not assign the license under any circumstances (consent was not forthcoming), the court held that cause existed to annul the automatic stay to permit the licensor to “move on with its trademark and its business.”

Exculpation provisions in operating agreements must be carefully crafted in order to protect members, managers, directors and officers for breaches of fiduciary duties. In In re Simplexity, LLC, the Chapter 7 trustee sued the former officers and directors (who were also members and/or managers) for failing to act to preserve going concern value and exposing the debtors to WARN Act claims. The defendants argued the exculpation language in the operating agreements shielded against breach of fiduciary duty liability.

It is very common for bankruptcy court orders to provide that the court retains jurisdiction to enforce such orders. Similarly, chapter 11 confirmation orders routinely provide that the bankruptcy court retains jurisdiction over all orders previously entered in the case. The enforceability of these “retention of jurisdiction” provisions, however, will not rest on the plain language in the order but on the bankruptcy court’s statutory jurisdiction.