In In re Ditech Holding Corp., 2019 WL 4073378 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Aug. 28, 2019), the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York addressed several objections to confirmation of a chapter 11 plan that proposed to sell home mortgage loans "free and clear" of certain claims and defenses of the homeowner creditors, contrary to a provision of the Bankruptcy Code—section 363(o)—which was enacted in 2005 to prevent free and clear sales of certain claims and defenses relating to consumer credit agreements.

Whether because of, or in spite of, the proliferating case law it is hard to say, but the issues in, underlying and surrounding third-party releases in Chapter 11 plans just continue to arise with incessant regularity, albeit without a marked increase in clarity. We have posted about those issues here six times in little more than two years,[1] and it is fair to assume that this post will not be the last.

Prepayment premiums (also referred to as make-whole premiums) are a common feature in loan documents, allowing lenders to recover a lump-sum amount if a borrower pays off loan obligations prior to maturity, effectively compensating lenders for yield that they would have otherwise received absent prepayment. As a result of the widespread use of such provisions, three circuit courts of appeal – the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Second, Third and Fifth Circuit – have recently had to address the enforceability of prepayment provisions in bankruptcy.

If you lend money, you know – or should know – it is a cardinal sin to collect a debt or repossess collateral after a borrower files bankruptcy.

Bankruptcy triggers the automatic stay – a command, not a suggestion, that collection activity cease. This is common knowledge, but every once in a while a case comes along that merits sharing as a reminder of what happens when lenders ignore the Bankruptcy Code.

On December 12, 2019, the Sixth Circuit issued an opinion^[1] in the ongoing bankruptcy proceedings of FirstEnergy Solutions Corp. The decision upheld the ability of a bankruptcy court to decide whether a power purchaser in bankruptcy proceedings can reject FERC-approved power purchase agreements (PPAs).

In MicroBilt Corporation v. Ranger Specialty Income Fund, L.P. et al. (In re Princeton AlternativeIncome Fund,LP), Case No. 3:18-CV-16557 (D.N.J. Nov. 27, 2019), the District Court for the District of New Jersey recently affirmed a bankruptcy court's decision to appoint a chapter 11 trustee, without conducting a traditional evidentiary hearing.  The holding reinforces that a bankruptcy court has broad discretion to grant extreme remedies in a case.

Facts

Ultra Petroleum entered bankruptcy in significant financial distress, but then – thanks to a spike in oil prices – the debtor’s fortunes changed almost literally overnight.

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on December 3, 2019 in Simon E. Rodriguez v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., 18-1269 (Sup. Ct.).

A number of recent structurings of investment-grade rated securitizations of oil and gas wells are sparking conversations in the U.S. upstream oil and gas industry about this relatively new, structured finance product. Although structured finance products are not new to the industry, interest in these products has been rekindled as exploration and production (“E&P”) companies seek alternatives to the more traditional reserve-based loans, equity financing, and bond issuances.

The Arena Football League (AFL) has filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in a Delaware bankruptcy court. The AFL filed its bankruptcy petition a little over a month after suspending all local business operations for its remaining six teams.

Since its inception in 1986, there have been as many as 19 AFL teams in a single season. However, the number of teams dramatically decreased following a Chapter 11 reorganization in 2009. That same year, the league rebranded to Arena Football One.