What happens if one party to a contract fails to perform? Can the innocent party get all of its losses back? What happens if the losses are difficult to prove?

Here, we look at what you can claim and how to protect your position.

The general rule

Damages for breach of contract are usually intended to compensate the injured party for its losses arising naturally from the breach or which were within the parties' contemplation when the contract was made.

On November 28, 2017, Tidewater Inc. and its affiliated debtors (collectively, the “Tidewater Debtors”) withdrew their motion objecting to final allowance of rejection damage claims of Fifth Third Equipment Finance Company (“Fifth Third”). The notice of withdrawal indicated that Fifth Third, the sole remaining non-settling vessel lessor, resolved its dispute with the Tidewater Debtors pursuant to which Fifth Third’s “Sale Leaseback Claim” was allowed in the amount of $67,500,000.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held on Jan. 27, 2014 that a lender’s acceleration due to a borrower’s payment default did not trigger a prepayment premium. In re Denver Merchandise Mart, Inc., 2014 WL 291920, *1 (5th Cir. Jan. 27, 2014) (“Denver Merchandise”). Affirming the lower courts’ application of state law, the court held that “the plain language of the contract does not require the payment of the Prepayment Consideration in the event of mere acceleration.” Id. at *5.  

Relevance

The Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York recently considered the enforceability of claims for "make-whole" amounts and damages for breach of a "no-call" provision. In re Chemtura Corp., No. 09-11233 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Oct. 21, 2010) ("Chemtura"). These provisions are generally enforceable outside of bankruptcy, but enforceability in the context of a bankruptcy case is still unclear. In Chemtura, the court did not actually rule on enforceability but approved a settlement that allocated value to creditors on account of a make-whole clause and a no-call provision.

Decoding the code - China's new General Civil Law Rules: the first step towards a comprehensive civil code June 2017 Decoding the code - China's new General Civil Law Rules: the first step towards a comprehensive civil code June 2017 1 Overview and background On 15 March 2017, the People's Republic of China General Civil Law Rules (中华人民共和国 民法总则) (hereinafter referred to as the "GCLR") were formally adopted at the Fifth Session of the Twelfth National People's Congress. The GCLR will enter into force on 1 October 2017.

In Lasmos Ltd v. Southwest Pacific Bauxite (HK) Ltd (02/03/2018, HCCW 277/2017), [2018] HKCFI 426 (Lasmos), the Court of First Instance held that a winding-up petition based on a disputed debt may be dismissed if there was an arbitration clause in the underlying agreement, upon which arbitration has commenced.

Welcome to this issue of Herbert Smith Freehills' Australian Construction Dispute Resolution Newsletter.

This newsletter updates you on legal developments relevant to your industry by featuring Australian court decisions and legislative developments of particular interest.

In this issue, we look at:

In re Altadena Lincoln Crossing LLC, 2018 Westlaw 3244502 (Bankr. C.D. Cal.), a California bankruptcy court held that a default interest rate provision was an unenforceable penalty under applicable California law because, among other things, the applicable loan agreements did not contain an estimate of the probable costs to the lender resulting from the debtor’s default.

Background

In Short

The Situation: After a ruling in In re Ultra Petroleum Corp. by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas, certain private-placement noteholders are entitled to a "make-whole" premium in excess of $200 million, under a chapter 11 plan that had rendered the noteholders' claims unimpaired.