On April 23, 2019, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, in fraudulent transfer litigation arising out of the 2007 leveraged buyout of the Tribune Company,1 ruled on one of the significant issues left unresolved by the US Supreme Court in its Merit Management decision last year.

On January 25, 2019, the US Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC” or “Commission”) issued an order clarifying its position with regard to bankruptcy filings that seek to reject Commission-jurisdictional wholesale power purchase agreements. In response to a petition for a declaratory order and complaint filed by NextEra Energy, Inc. and NextEra Energy Partners, L.P.

In a recent decision that will be of interest to capital and structured finance market participants,1 a bankruptcy court in the Southern District of New York found that nonrecourse noteholders of a structured finance vehicle were not eligible petitioners under § 303(b) of the Bankruptcy Code and therefore could not commence an involuntary bankruptcy case.

Intercreditor agreements--contracts that lay out the respective rights, obligations and priorities of different classes of creditors--play an increasingly important role in corporate finance in light of the continued prevalence of complex capital structures involving various levels of debt. When a company encounters financial difficulties, intercreditor agreements become all the more important, as competing classes of creditors seek to maximize their share of the company's limited assets.

Artists have long relied on art galleries to sell their works, and artists and galleries frequently use the legal construct of a “consignment” to facilitate the display and sale of art. In a consignment, the gallery does not acquire title to a work. Instead, the artist (the “consignor”) entrusts the work to the consignee—in most cases a gallery or auction house—for the consignee to sell. If and when an artwork is sold, the gallery pays the artist out of the proceeds of the sale.

The Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York recently held in Edward S. Weisfelner, as Litigation Trustee of the LB Creditor Trust v. Fund 1., et al.

Securities Investor Protection Corp. v. Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC, 12-mc-115 (S.D.N.Y. July 6, 2014) [click for opinion]

Official Comm. of Unsecured Creditors of Arcapita, Bank. B.S.C. v. Bahr. Islamic Bank, No. 15-cv-03828 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2016) [click for opinion]

In a prior blog post, “Making Sense of The Circuit Split on the Enforcement of Make-Whole Provisions in Bankruptcy,” we discussed the circuit split on the enforcement of a make-whole premium triggered by a bankruptcy petition. Shortly after that post was published, the U.S.

The enforcement of a lender’s claim for a make-whole premium in a chapter 11 case has created significant controversy among legal practitioners and the courts. Notably, the three circuit courts of appeal that have addressed make-whole claims, i.e. the Second, Third and Fifth Circuits, have issued conflicting decisions on the nature of these claims and their allowance under the Bankruptcy Code. In this post we provide a brief summary of make-whole premiums and address the controversy among the circuits.