Lexology.com

/Home/Bankruptcy Laws/Federal Bankruptcy Law/Recent Federal Decisions on Bankruptcy

Lexology.com

Recent bankruptcy court decisions affecting counterparties to open or terminated derivative contracts with Lehman Brothers entities
View original document | Send to colleague | Print
Squire Sanders & Dempsey LLP

USA
September 23 2009
On September 17, 2009 Judge Peck of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York issued two orders that may significantly impact parties who held, or still currently hold, derivative contracts with Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc. (LBSF) or any of the other debtors in the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy cases (the Debtors). The first order (the ADR Order) approved alternative dispute resolution procedures (the Procedures) that will be used to resolve many of the disagreements that the Debtors have with derivative counterparties who may owe money to the Debtors upon termination of currently open derivative contracts and to obtain additional recoveries by the estate on derivative contracts that were previously terminated and had a termination payment paid to the estate. In the second order (the Metavante Order) the court found that the particular derivative counterparty in the matter addressed by the court could not ignore its contractual payment obligations to the Debtors and continue to preserve its termination rights. Each of these two orders is discussed more fully below.

The ADR Order

By the ADR Order, Judge Peck approved the Procedures, making the Procedures available to the Debtors with respect to both open and terminated contracts as to which the Debtors believe monetary recoveries (or further monetary recoveries) are possible. The Debtors expect that the Procedures will ultimately provide a significant source of funds for the bankruptcy estate.

The Procedures involve two stages – the Notice/Response Stage and the Mediation Stage. The Notice/Response Stage is initiated when one of the Debtors issues notice (a Derivatives ADR Notice) to its counterparty or to an indenture trustee representing counterparties. This notice will contain a description of the Debtors’ affirmative claim, including a brief explanation for the demand and the amount sought, and a demand for settlement, including the amount that the Debtors would accept in full settlement of the dispute.

A party receiving a Derivatives ADR Notice has 30 calendar days to respond (45 days for indenture trustees). Once the notice is received, the counterparty or indenture trustee’s participation in the Procedures is mandatory. A response should either agree to settle the demand or deny the demand, including a brief explanation for such denial, and, if appropriate, a counteroffer. A counterparty’s failure to provide timely response may result in either judgment in favor of the Debtors or immediate entry into the Mediation Stage. At any time during the Notice/Response Stage, either party may request an initial telephonic settlement conference. Any party not complying in good faith with the Procedures may be subject to sanctions as specified in the ADR Order.

Any dispute that is not resolved through the Notice/Response Stage proceeds to the Mediation Stage. The ADR Order appointed three mediators and specified that all mediation proceedings will take place in New York, unless the parties and the mediator otherwise agree. Parties involved in the Mediation Stage may serve mediation briefs on each other five days or more prior to the mediation date. Parties bear their own attorneys’ fees and other costs of the Procedures, except that the mediators’ costs are borne by the Debtors.

Any party receiving a Derivatives ADR Notice from any of the Lehman Brothers Debtors would be well-advised to consult with counsel immediately.

The Metavante Order

In the Metavante Order, Judge Peck found that Metavante Corporation, a nondefaulting derivative counterparty who owed periodic swap payments to the Debtors, was required to either terminate its positions or continue to fulfill its contractual obligations, including by making required payments to the Debtors. In short, Metavante could not expect to benefit under its derivative contract once it had suspended performance.

Metavante is a Wisconsin-based financial-technology company that had entered into a fixed-to-floating interest rate swap agreement (the Agreement) with LBSF in 2007 to hedge variable rate debt. Under the Agreement, Metavante paid LBSF amounts based on a fixed rate, while LBSF paid Metavante amounts based on a floating rate. Either LBSF or Metavante was obligated to make a quarterly payment to the other, depending on the difference between the prevailing floating interest rates and the fixed rate.

After the Debtors (including LBSF) filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in Fall 2008, prevailing rates fell to historic lows, so Metavante’s regularly scheduled payment obligations, and the theoretical termination value of the swap payable by Metavante, increased significantly. Metavante stopped making payments to LBSF, relying on a section of the Agreement that provided that the bankruptcy constituted an event of default that excused its performance. Notably, Metavante did not exercise its right to terminate the Agreement upon occurrence of an event of default.

Eventually, the Debtors filed a motion to compel Metavante’s performance under the Agreement with respect to the regularly scheduled payments, alleging that Metavante had failed to make more than US$6.6 million in payments to LBSF. The Debtors argued, and the court agreed, that under the Bankruptcy Code, Metavante was obliged to either terminate the Agreement within a reasonably prompt period after the chapter 11 filing or continue to perform. The court reasoned that while terminating or accelerating a derivatives agreement after the chapter 11 filing may be permissible under the Bankruptcy Code’s "safe harbor" provisions, which protect nondefaulting derivative contract counterparties, Metavante could not otherwise fail to perform without terminating its agreement with the LBSF.

We expect the Debtors to rely on the Metavante Order in actions against other, similarly situated counterparties. We recommend that any parties who did not terminate derivatives contract positions with Lehman Brothers entities and who have suspended performance under derivatives contracts to contact counsel immediately to discuss the potential impact of the Metavante Order.
Tags
USA, Derivatives, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Squire Sanders & Dempsey LLP Share this article on...
Delicious Digg Reddit Facebook StumbleUpon Google Bookmarks Twitter Mixx it Newsvine Popular related articles
USADerivativesInsolvency & RestructuringLitigationSquire Sanders & Dempsey LLP.1.New HIPAA security breach notification rules require immediate action (Baker & McKenzie)
The Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act ("HITECH Act"), enacted as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, made some significant changes to the privacy and security rules under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA").

2.EEOC emphasizes expansive interpretation of the ADA Amendments Act in issuing notice of proposed rulemaking (Barnes & Thornburg LLP)
On Sept. 23, 2009, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to revise its current regulations under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 29 C.F.R. part 1630, and implement the employment provisions of the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA).

3.EEOC issues proposed revisions to ADA regulations and interpretive guidance (Duane Morris LLP)
On September 23, 2009, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's ("EEOC") proposed revisions to the existing Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") regulations and accompanying interpretative guidance were published in the Federal Register.

4.The United States ratifies the Rotterdam Rules: changes in cargo liability (Lane Powell PC)
On September 23, 2009, the shipping industry embraced a new international regime the Rotterdam Rules (United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Carriage of Goods Wholly or Partly by Sea) to regulate marine cargo liabilities in the global economy.

5.US Bankruptcy Court finds that payment conditionality is unenforceabe under Section 2 (a) (iii) of the ISDA Master Agreement (Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP)
The judge responsible for the Lehman bankruptcy proceedings in the United States has found that the provisions of the US bankruptcy code that exempt swap agreements and master netting agreements from the application of the Code's automatic stay and other relevant provisions do not permit a party to an ISDA Master Agreement to suspend performance under Section 2 (a) (iii) of the master agreement.

6.NYSE proposes changes to corporate governance requirements (Burns & Levinson LLP)
On August 26, 2009, the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), for its approval, a list of proposed changes aimed at (a) amending certain of the corporate governance requirements contained in current Section 303A of the NYSE’s Listed Company Manual (“Listed Company Manual”), and (b) eliminating current Section 307.00 of the Listed Company Manual.

7.USPTO releases post-Bilski Section 101 examination guidelines (McDermott Will & Emery)
Public comments on USPTO’s post-Bilski, patentable subject matter guidelines are due September 28, 2009.

8.SEC publishes Section 13(d) and 13(g) compliance & disclosure interpretations (Fried Frank Harris Shriver & Jacobson LLP)
On September 14, 2009, the staff of the Division of Corporation Finance of the Securities and Exchange Commission published new and updated interpretations regarding Sections 13(d) and 13(g) of the Securities Exchange Act, Regulation 13D-G, and Schedules 13D and 13G.

9.Navigating social media in the business world (Hogan & Hartson LLP)
Much has been written lately about social media applications such as Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn and their intersection with the business world.

10.The Ninth Circuit holds that "authority" requirement prevent employer from bringing Computer Fraud and Abuse Act claim against former employee (Seyfarth Shaw LLP)
In a recent decision, the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals joined a growing number of federal courts that have limited the use of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act ("CFAA") in suits brought against former employees accused of taking data from a company’s computer system before leaving the company.

11.Battle of the titans: when trade secret protection and the prohibition on non-competes hit head on in California – one court gets it right (Alston & Bird LLP)
We all know that non-competes are generally verboten in California.

0.House Committee holds hearings on regulation of over-the-counter derivatives (Alston & Bird LLP) The House Committee on Agriculture held a series of hearings to review legislation proposed by the U.S. Department of Treasury regarding the regulation of over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives markets.
0.Senator Reed introduces Comprehensive Derivatives Regulation Act of 2009 (Alston & Bird LLP) Yesterday, Senator Jack Reed (D-RI), Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee's Subcommittee on Securities, Insurance, and Investments, introduced the Comprehensive Derivatives Regulation Act of 2009 (CDRA), legislation intended to "establish a comprehensive regulatory framework to prevent derivatives trading activities from ever again contributing to catastrophic failures in our financial system."
0.Derivative exposure and counterparty insolvency: lessons learned in the current market (Haynes and Boone LLP) Almost all large (and many small) companies in today’s economy use derivatives in one way or another to hedge against future risk.
0.FSA and UK Treasury issue joint response to EU Commission’s consultation on OTC derivatives (Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP) On September 24, the UK Financial Services Authority (FSA) and the UK Treasury (collectively, the UK Authorities) released a response to the European Commission’s July 3 consultation on ways to reduce the risks of derivative markets.
0.Recent bankruptcy court decisions affecting counterparties to open or terminated derivative contracts with Lehman Brothers entities (Squire Sanders & Dempsey LLP) On September 17, 2009 Judge Peck of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York issued two orders that may significantly impact parties who held, or still currently hold, derivative contracts with Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc.
0.IMA responds on OTC derivatives (Denton Wilde Sapte LLP) IMA has responded to the Commission's consultation on the OTC derivatives markets.
0.US Bankruptcy Court finds that payment conditionality is unenforceabe under Section 2 (a) (iii) of the ISDA Master Agreement (Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP) The judge responsible for the Lehman bankruptcy proceedings in the United States has found that the provisions of the US bankruptcy code that exempt swap agreements and master netting agreements from the application of the Code's automatic stay and other relevant provisions do not permit a party to an ISDA Master Agreement to suspend performance under Section 2 (a) (iii) of the master agreement.
0.Metavante/Lehman decision: interim swap payments are not excused by Lehman’s bankruptcy (Clifford Chance LLP) On September 15, 2009 the US Bankruptcy Court hearing the Lehman Chapter 11 bankruptcy cases determined that Metavante Corporation, a swap counterparty of a Lehman debtor, was not excused by reason of the "safe harbor" provisions of the Bankruptcy Code from making scheduled swap payments and, in any event, had waived its right to terminate the swap by taking no action for a year.
0.The anti-deprivation principle and an Atlantic divide (McDermott Will & Emery) Structured finance transactions frequently subordinate a swap counterparty’s rights to termination payments upon termination of a swap by reason of counterparty default.
0.Bankruptcy court orders swap counterparty to pay Lehman Brothers despite event of default (Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP) The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York entered an order on Sept. 17, 2009, granting a motion filed by Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc. (“LBSF”) to compel Metavante Corporation (“Metavante”) to continue to make payments to LBSF under an ISDA Master Agreement.
0.CESR responds to OTC market consultation (Denton Wilde Sapte LLP) CESR has responded to the Commission’s consultation on enhancing OTC derivatives market resilience.

0.Intellectual property issues for liquidators and administrators (Walker Morris) Faced with declining values elsewhere, how can Insolvency Practitioners protect, and enhance the value of a business's intellectual property rights?
0.Landlord insolvency and release of liability following the Avonridge case (Bristows) The potential for a tenant to remain liable on lease covenants following assignment is generally well known but it is often not appreciated that under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1995 ("the 1995 Act"), a landlord remains bound by the landlord covenants under a lease notwithstanding a transfer of its reversion in the premises.
0.Marks & Spencer (group relief): HMRC’s “lesser of” quantification method rejected (Dorsey & Whitney LLP) In its previous decision in April the First Tier Tribunal upheld the cross border group relief claims which Marks & Spencer made in respect of its Belgium and German subsidiaries after the subsidiaries had commenced liquidation.
0.Recent bankruptcy court decisions affecting counterparties to open or terminated derivative contracts with Lehman Brothers entities (Squire Sanders & Dempsey LLP) On September 17, 2009 Judge Peck of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York issued two orders that may significantly impact parties who held, or still currently hold, derivative contracts with Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc.
0.Bankrupt retains home where trustees fail to realise their interest in time (Walker Morris) In Lewis v Metropolitan Property Realisations Ltd, the Court of Appeal concluded that the term 'realisation' was used in section 283A of the Insolvency Act 1986 in a sense which involved turning the realised property into cash, and was inconsistent with part of its value being left outstanding in an unfulfilled monetary (or other) obligation.
0.The way forward where value breaks in the junior debt – a ruling from the Dutch courts (Clifford Chance LLP) The Schoeller Arca Systems group ("SAS") had entered into financing arrangements comprised of a EUR 142,000,000 senior facility and a EUR 180,000,000 bridge facility.
0.US Bankruptcy Court finds that payment conditionality is unenforceabe under Section 2 (a) (iii) of the ISDA Master Agreement (Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP) The judge responsible for the Lehman bankruptcy proceedings in the United States has found that the provisions of the US bankruptcy code that exempt swap agreements and master netting agreements from the application of the Code's automatic stay and other relevant provisions do not permit a party to an ISDA Master Agreement to suspend performance under Section 2 (a) (iii) of the master agreement.
0.Metavante/Lehman decision: interim swap payments are not excused by Lehman’s bankruptcy (Clifford Chance LLP) On September 15, 2009 the US Bankruptcy Court hearing the Lehman Chapter 11 bankruptcy cases determined that Metavante Corporation, a swap counterparty of a Lehman debtor, was not excused by reason of the "safe harbor" provisions of the Bankruptcy Code from making scheduled swap payments and, in any event, had waived its right to terminate the swap by taking no action for a year.
0.What does the IMO Car Wash court decision mean for creditors? (Fried Frank Harris Shriver & Jacobson LLP) In August 2009, an English court sanctioned the use of a scheme of arrangement to restructure the debt of IMO Car Wash Group, a highly leveraged UK-based car wash company.
0.Summary of amendments to the CCAA and BIA (Fraser Milner Casgrain LLP) On September 18, 2009, amendments (the "Amendments") to the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (the "CCAA") and Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (the "BIA") came into force.
0.Bankruptcy court orders swap counterparty to pay Lehman Brothers despite event of default (Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP) The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York entered an order on Sept. 17, 2009, granting a motion filed by Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc. (“LBSF”) to compel Metavante Corporation (“Metavante”) to continue to make payments to LBSF under an ISDA Master Agreement.

0.Dismissal held to be fair after nurse smacked son in own home (Weightmans) The case of Pope v Malvern St James School and Girls College has attracted recent media attention as the case of a mother, dismissed from her employment for smacking one of her children in the privacy of her own home.
0.Court of Appeal provides guidance on Part 36 offers to settle in context of counterclaims (Herbert Smith LLP) In AF v BG [2009] EWCA Civ 757 the court confirmed that a defendant can be treated as a claimant in respect of its counterclaim and be deemed to have made a "claimant's Part 36 offer", even in circumstances where the defendant's counterclaim has not yet been pleaded.
0.Entire agreement clause sham (Shepherd & Wedderburn LLP) In Launahurst Ltd v Larner, the courts continue to take a strict approach to sham clauses in agreements with individual contractors.
0.“Off sick” employees can take their holiday later (Berwin Leighton Paisner) The ECJ’s new decision in Pereda v Madrid Movilidad SA suggests that employers may now have to give employees who are off sick more flexibility about when they take their statutory annual leave.
0.Website owners may face liability for hyperlinks to defamatory material (Borden Ladner Gervais LLP) The British Columbia Court of Appeal has just issued an important judgment on the increasingly important issue of Internet defamation: Crookes v. Newton 2009 BCCA 392.
0.Termination for an “oily” breach of contract (Deacons) In the recent decision of Olivaylle Pty Ltd v Flottweg GMBH & Co KGAA (No 4) (2009) 255 ALR 632, a single judge of the Federal Court held that a purported termination of a contract for the sale of goods by the purchaser for an alleged breach of that contract was invalid.
0.GST input tax credits and assumed liabilities (Lang Michener LLP) On a business transfer implemented as an asset purchase, the buyer will often assume business liabilities arising in the normal course up to the time of closing.
0.Burden of fraud shifted from mortgagor to mortgagee (Deacons) In the recent Supreme Court of NSW case, Permanent Trustee Company Limited v O’Donnell [2009] NSWSC 902, the financial burden of a fraud on three mortgagors was passed on to their mortgagee.
0.The Ninth Circuit holds that "authority" requirement prevent employer from bringing Computer Fraud and Abuse Act claim against former employee (Seyfarth Shaw LLP) In a recent decision, the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals joined a growing number of federal courts that have limited the use of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act ("CFAA") in suits brought against former employees accused of taking data from a company’s computer system before leaving the company.
0.Nestle trade mark takes caffeine hit (Phillips Ormonde Fitzpatrick) Cantarella Bros Pty Limited (“Cantarella”) has successfully opposed a trade mark application for an image of a cup of coffee (as shown here) in respect of coffee, coffee extracts, coffee-based preparations and beverages and various other goods in Class 30 filed in the name of Société des Produits Nestlé S.A. (“Nestle”) in Cantarella Bros Pty Ltd v Societe des Produits Nestle S.A. [2009] ATMO 62.
0.Battle of the titans: when trade secret protection and the prohibition on non-competes hit head on in California – one court gets it right (Alston & Bird LLP) We all know that non-competes are generally verboten in California.

0.VAT rate increase: it goes back up to 17.5% on 1 January 2010 (Squire Sanders & Dempsey LLP) It is proposed that the rate of VAT will be restored to 17.5% on 1 January 2010 assuming that HMRC do not take on board any of the suggestions that the change should take place later, the rate should be higher, lower or something else.
0.Recent bankruptcy court decisions affecting counterparties to open or terminated derivative contracts with Lehman Brothers entities (Squire Sanders & Dempsey LLP) On September 17, 2009 Judge Peck of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York issued two orders that may significantly impact parties who held, or still currently hold, derivative contracts with Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc.
0.President Obama rules in key import safeguard case (Squire Sanders & Dempsey LLP) On September 11, President Obama decided to place safeguard tariffs on China’s exports of car and truck tires to the United States.
0.The Supreme Court further clarifies the principle of “changes in circumstance” (Squire Sanders & Dempsey LLP) In a May 2009 Squire Sanders China Alert, we analyzed a judicial interpretation (Interpretation II on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the PRC Contract Law, February 9, 2009 [Interpretation II]) published by the PRC Supreme Court allowing courts in China to amend or terminate contracts based on the principle of changes in circumstance.
0.Employee benefit trusts: HMRC explain their view on the IHT implications (Squire Sanders & Dempsey LLP) HMRC have issued Brief 49/2009 setting out their view of the inheritance tax implications of contributions to employee benefit trusts (EBTs) by a close company.
0.Tax-exempt financing of solid waste disposal facilities (Squire Sanders & Dempsey LLP) On September 16, 2009 the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) published notice in the Federal Register of proposed regulations (the proposed regulations) defining the term "solid waste disposal facility" for tax-exempt bond purposes.
0.New rules for virtual currency trading (Squire Sanders & Dempsey LLP) On June 4, 2009 China’s Ministry of Culture and Ministry of Commerce jointly issued a notice aimed at restricting the use and trading of virtual currencies (the "Notice").
0.IRS grants final extension for late FBAR filers (Squire Sanders & Dempsey LLP) On Monday, September 21, 2009, the US Internal Revenue Service (IRS) announced a one-time extension of the deadline for special voluntary disclosures by taxpayers with unreported income from offshore accounts (see IR-2009-84).
0.New IPO measures and Shenzhen Stock Exchange listing rules for GEM board (Squire Sanders & Dempsey LLP) As part of a longstanding effort to develop China’s multilayer capital market, on March 31, 2009 the China Securities Regulatory Commission (“CSRC”) published the Interim Measures for Initial Public Offerings and Listing of Stocks on the Growth Enterprise Market (“GEM IPO Measures”), which took effect on May 1, 2009.
0.Corporate governance reforms and proposed amendments to NYSE governance disclosures (Squire Sanders & Dempsey LLP) Several recent corporate governance reforms including the August 26, 2009 New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) proposal to amend corporate governance disclosure requirements that apply to listed companies have been proposed and implemented since the publication of two recent Corporate Alerts.
0.Remittance basis: the new version of the HMRC manual is published (Squire Sanders & Dempsey LLP) A new version of the Remittance Basis Manual has been published by HMRC which brings together all the notes and FAQs about how the remittance basis works following the 2008 changes.

Most popular articles on Lexology
View original document | Send to colleague | Print
If you are interested in submitting an article to Lexology, please contact Andrew Teague at ateague@lexology.com