Third Circuit Sides With Creditors in EFIH Make-Whole Dispute
In their Bankruptcy Practice column, John J. Rapisardi and Joseph Zujkowski write: At the end of last year, the Third Circuit added to several recent decisions addressing whether a creditor was entitled to payment of a "make whole" premium in connection with a Chapter 11 case. The opinion is the most creditor-friendly decision issued to date on this issue, as the court found that the refinancing of certain first and second lien notes after the Chapter 11 cases were commenced triggered payment of a "make whole" premium.
June 07, 2017 at 02:03 PM
10 minute read
At the end of last year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit added to several recent decisions addressing whether a creditor was entitled to payment of a “make whole” premium in connection with a Chapter 11 case. See Delaware Trust Co. v. Energy Future Intermediate Holding Co. (In re Energy Future Holdings), 842 F.3d 247 (3d. Cir. 2016)). The Third Circuit's opinion is the most creditor-friendly decision issued to date on this issue, as the Third Circuit found that the refinancing of certain first and second lien notes after EFIH's Chapter 11 cases were commenced triggered payment of a “make whole” premium. Notably, the Third Circuit found that the “make whole” premium was payable despite the fact that the indentures governing the notes did not expressly provide for payment of the premium in the event of an EFIH bankruptcy.
Background
In 2010, Energy Futures Intermediate Holding Company and EFIH Finance (collectively, EFIH) issued approximately $4 billion in 10 percent first lien notes due 2020 pursuant to an indenture governed by New York law. Two specific indenture provisions were of significance. First, §3.07, captioned “Optional Redemption,” provided that “[a]t any time prior to December 1, 2015, [EFIH] may redeem all or a part of the Notes at a redemption price equal to 100% of the principal amount of the Notes redeemed plus the Applicable Premium.” Id. at 251. The amount of the “Applicable Premium” decreased over time, and was structured to compensate noteholders for interest that would have otherwise been paid through the Notes' stated maturity date following an early redemption.Id.
Second, §6.02 of the indenture provided that, following an EFIH bankruptcy, “all outstanding Notes” shall automatically “be due and payable immediately without further action or notice.” Id. Unlike many other indentures and credit agreements, the EFIH first lien indenture did not expressly provide that the amount immediately due following automatic acceleration of the Notes included a premium. For example, the indenture governing EFIH's second lien notes provided that the amount due on acceleration included “all principal of and premium, if any, interest …[,] and any other monetary obligations on the outstanding Notes.” Id.
'Momentive'
Shortly after EFIH filed for Chapter 11, Judge Robert Drain of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York issued a controversial decision in the Momentive Chapter 11 cases. See In re MPM Silicones, No. 14-22503-RDD, 2014 WL 4436335 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Sept. 9, 2014), aff'd, 531 B.R. 321 (S.D.N.Y. 2015). The decision confirmed a Chapter 11 plan over the objection of two secured creditor groups that argued, among other things, that the plan could not be confirmed without providing for payment of the make-whole premium due under their respective indentures. Like the EFIH indentures, the Momentive indentures required payment of the “Applicable Premium” following an “Optional Redemption” of the notes prior to a specified date. Additionally, like the EFIH second lien indenture, the Momentive indentures provided that the amount due upon automatic acceleration of the notes as a result of a bankruptcy filing included the principal balance of the notes, accrued and unpaid interest, and the applicable “premium, if any.” Id. at *13-14.
In overruling the plan objections, Judge Drain stressed that it is “well settled” under New York law that a lender generally is deemed to forfeit its right to a prepayment premium upon acceleration of a loan, noting that “by accelerating the debt, the lender advances the maturity of the loan and any subsequent payment by definition cannot be a prepayment.” Id. He further clarified that this general rule is inapplicable only where “a clear and unambiguous clause calls for the payment of a prepayment premium or make-whole even in the event of acceleration, or the establishment of a new maturity date.” Id.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllMall of America Dealt Another Blow in Quest to End $10-Per-Year Lease With Sears
3 minute readCleary vs. White & Case: NY Showdown Over $5 Billion Brazilian Bankruptcy
US Bankruptcy Filings Rise 16.2% as Interest Rates, Inflation, and End of COVID Relief Hit Hard
3 minute read200 Hrs. of Partner Prep Guides Quinn Emanuel's Incredibly Detailed Mock Bankruptcy Trial
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.