Bankruptcy Code

Second Circuit Affirms Enforceability of Flip Provisions in Swap Agreements Under Bankruptcy Code Safe Harbor

Posted on

 

For over a decade, Lehman Brothers Special Financing (“LBSF”) has been litigating the enforceability of so-called “flip clauses” in connection with the post-bankruptcy liquidation of swap agreements. These clauses, which are common in structured financing transactions, specify the priority of payments when a swap provider (like LBSF) is in default. In particular, these clauses purport to subordinate the swap provider’s payment priority below that of noteholders when termination payments are owed due to the provider’s default.

When LBSF’s holding company (Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.) filed a chapter 11 petition in September 2008, that filing placed LBSF in default under various swap agreements to which LBSF was a party. In a 2010 complaint involving 44 synthetic collateralized debt obligations (“CDOs”) that LBSF created, LBSF sought to claw back over $1 billion that had been distributed to noteholders in connection with the early termination of swap transactions, arguing that the flip clauses in those transactions were ipso facto provisions and therefore unenforceable. (Ipso facto clauses are contractual provisions that modify a debtor’s contractual rights solely because it petitioned for bankruptcy; the Bankruptcy Code generally treats such provisions as unenforceable.) The noteholders defended the distributions on various grounds, including by invoking the safe harbor codified in section 560 of the Bankruptcy Code, which exempts “swap agreements” from the Bankruptcy Code’s prohibition of ipso facto clauses.[1] Read our key takeaways here.

Update to Madoff

Posted on

 

Following our post on the district court’s extraterritoriality decision, the bankruptcy court dismissed the actions against several defendants on the grounds that the presumption against extraterritoriality and international comity principles limit the scope of § 550(a)(2) such that the trustee of a domestic debtor cannot use it to recover property that the debtor transferred to a foreign entity that subsequently transferred it to another foreign entity. However, on February 25, 2019, the Second Circuit disagreed with the bankruptcy court’s decision and vacated the judgement and remanded the matter back to the bankruptcy court for further proceedings. More to come.

 

Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument in Jevic on Whether Distribution of Settlement Proceeds May Depart From Statutory Priority Scheme

Posted on

 

The United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments on December 7, 2016 in Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp. The case poses a question that has divided the Second, Third, and Fifth Circuits: Whether a bankruptcy court may authorize the distribution of settlement proceeds in a way that departs from the statutory priority scheme in the Bankruptcy Code, including through a so-called “structured settlement.” READ MORE →

Sixth Circuit Finds Bankruptcy Court Cannot Force City to Provide Services in Chapter 9

Posted on

On November 14, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that courts in chapter 9 cases lack authority to order a municipal debtor to provide services to its constituents. Affirming the bankruptcy court’s dismissal of customers’ claims arising from the termination of their water service by the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department, the Sixth Circuit held that section 904 of the Bankruptcy Code prohibits a chapter 9 court from entering orders that “interfere” with a municipality’s “political [and] governmental powers.” In re City of Detroit, Mich., No. 15-2236, 2016 WL 6677715 (6th Cir. Nov. 14, 2016). READ MORE →

The Impact of PROMESA on Creditors

Posted on

 

On June 30, 2016, the United States Senate passed the “Puerto Rico Oversight, Management and Economic Stability Act” (“PROMESA”) and it was quickly signed into law by President Obama.[1] PROMESA enables the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and its public corporations and other instrumentalities in financial distress to restructure their debt.[2] The goal of PROMESA is to “bring solvency to Puerto Rico, build a foundation for future growth and ensure the island regains access to capital markets”.[3] PROMESA, though, is not limited to restructuring and enforcement of debt obligations or securities.  If you lent money or extended other forms of credit, or provided goods or services, to Puerto Rico or any of its instrumentalities, PROMESA may affect you. READ MORE →

Supreme Court to Resolve Circuit Split Over Structured Dismissals

Posted on

 

The Supreme Court again will be addressing the powers of bankruptcy courts. At the end of the term, the Court granted certiorari in Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp. to decide whether a bankruptcy court may authorize the distribution of settlement proceeds in a way that violates the statutory priority scheme in the Bankruptcy Code.  No. 15-649, 2016 WL 3496769 (S. Ct. June 28, 2016).  The Supreme Court is expected to address this fundamental bankruptcy issue sometime early next year. READ MORE →

Monoline Insurer Challenges Puerto Rico’s Moratorium Law

Posted on

On June 15, 2016, National Public Finance Guarantee Corporation, an indirect subsidiary of MBIA Inc. (“NPFG”) commenced an action in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico against the Governor of Puerto Rico and certain other officials in an action styled under the caption National Public Finance Guarantee Corporation v. Alejandro Gracia Padilla et. al, No. 16-CV-2101 (FAB), seeking a declaratory judgment that Puerto Rico’s Emergency Moratorium and Financial Rehabilitation Act (the “Moratorium Act”) adopted by Puerto Rico is preempted by the Bankruptcy Code and violates the United States Constitution. READ MORE →

US Supreme Court Issues Two Significant Cases on Puerto Rico’s Sovereignty

Posted on

In the first decision, on June 9, 2016, the United States Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico that Puerto Rico and the United States are not separate sovereigns for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause contained in the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution in the appeal styled under the caption Commonwealth of Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle, No. 15-108. Opinion. Sanchez Valle was the first of two appeals heard by the U.S. Supreme Court this term involving Puerto Rico.

On June 13, 2016, the US Supreme Court also confirmed the decisions by the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and by the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico that Puerto Rico’s Debt Enforcement & Recovery Act (DERA) was unconstitutional in the appeals styled under the caption Puerto Rico v. Franklin California Tax-Free Trust, 15-233, and Acosta-Febo v. Franklin California Tax-Free Trust, 15-255 (the “Franklin Fund Appeals”). Opinion. We previously covered the First Circuit’s decision here. READ MORE →

Not So Fast – Supreme Court Holds Prepetition Fraudulent Transfer Precludes Post-Petition Discharge in Husky International

, and Posted on

One of the goals of the Bankruptcy Code is to provide a debtor with a fresh start. The discharge of prepetition debts at the conclusion of a bankruptcy case is one of the most important ways to attain this fresh start.  On May 16, 2016, the Supreme Court made it harder for debtors to obtain a fresh start by broadening an exception to discharge.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code provides that an individual debtor is not discharged from any debt “for money, property [or] services … to the extent obtained by false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud[.]” Circuits split as to whether actual fraud under Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires an affirmative misrepresentation; the Fifth Circuit had held that this was a necessary element to prevent discharge, but the Seventh Circuit had held that “actual fraud” encompassed a broader range of behaviors.

The Supreme Court resolved this split, rejecting the Fifth Circuit’s narrow interpretation and finding that the term “actual fraud” does not need to include an affirmative misrepresentation by the debtor. With this broader reading, debtors will be unable to discharge prepetition debts where there is evidence that they inappropriately siphoned of their assets prior to filing for bankruptcy. Husky Int’l Elecs., Inc. v. Ritz, No. 15-145, 2016 WL 2842452 (U.S. May 16, 2016). READ MORE →

Seventh Circuit Holds Section 105(a) Permits Stay of Litigation Against Non-Debtor Affiliates

Posted on

Section 105(a) of the Bankruptcy Code provides that a bankruptcy court “may issue any order, process, or judgment that is necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions of this title.” 11 U.S.C. § 105(a).  In the Caesars bankruptcy, the Seventh Circuit explored the breadth of a court’s rights to take action under this section.  The Seventh Circuit held that section 105(a) permits the Bankruptcy Court to issue an injunction with respect to litigation pending against the debtors’ non-debtor parent.  The Court of Appeals did not ultimately determine whether the stay should in fact be granted because “that’s an issue for the bankruptcy judge to resolve in the first instance;” rather, it held that the Bankruptcy Court and District Court had erred in interpreting section 105(a) too narrowly in denying the stay sought by the debtors. In re Caesars Entm’t Operating Co., Inc., No. 15-3259, 2015 WL 9311432 (7th Cir. Dec. 23, 2015).

READ MORE →