Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email GroupSales@alm.com 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.
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.
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.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?