Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Make-Whole Mayhem
Make-whole premiums are essentially prepayment penalties imposed on borrowers when loans are paid off in advance of their maturity dates. These premiums are increasingly common yield-protection tools meant to compensate lenders for interest they would otherwise receive for the remainder of the term but for the unexpected early repayment. Make-whole premiums remove the borrowers' incentives to refinance whenever interest rates drop, and provide stability and predictability to the world of secured lending.
Recently, tempted by attractive interest rates, certain borrowers have sought to use the bankruptcy process to shield themselves from their obligations to pay make-whole premiums contemplated by their indenture documents. Although certain courts have allowed crafty borrowers to shed unwanted make-whole obligations through the bankruptcy process, other courts, including the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, refuse to sanction such manipulation.
In a recent decision in the tumultuous bankruptcy proceedings of Energy Future Holdings Corp., et al. (hereinafter EFIH), the Third Circuit appears to have restored the vitality of so-called make-whole premiums. Delaware Trust Company v. Energy Future Intermediate Holding Company, et al. (In re Energy Future Holdings Corp.), Case No. 16-1351 (3rd Cir., Nov. 17, 2016). Reversing the decisions of the district and bankruptcy courts in Delaware, the Third Circuit held that certain noteholders were entitled to receive roughly $670 million in make-whole premiums pursuant to their respective indentures where the debt was “automatically accelerated” upon the issuer's bankruptcy filing. In so finding, the Third Circuit expressly rejected the reasoning and holdings expressed in recent decisions of the lower courts in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, In re MPM Silicones, LLC, et al., No. 14-22503-RDD, 2014 WL 4436335, at *13-14 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Sept. 9, 2014) (hereinafter Momentive), perhaps generating a circuit split that will require resolution in the near future.
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.