Chapter 11

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.

Orrick’s Marc Levinson Compares Chapter 9 to Chapter 11 for the Federal Judicial Center Website

Posted on

 

Orrick Restructuring Senior Counsel Marc Levinson is one of the chapter 9 experts assisting in the preparation of a chapter 9 manual for bankruptcy judges and court clerks that has been posted on the website of the Federal Judicial Center, an arm of the United States Courts which educates federal judges.  Among other things, the manual will discuss the differences between chapter 9 and chapter 11 bankruptcies. The below video comparing chapter 9 v. chapter 11 was prepared at the FJC’s request that Marc draw upon his experience representing the cities of Stockton and Vallejo, California, in their chapter 9 cases. It has been posted on the FJC’s website, but note that access to the video on that website is restricted to judges. READ MORE →

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 →

Third Circuit Departs from Momentive and Reinstates EFIH Noteholder Make-Whole Claims Causing Uncertainty over EFH’s Ability to Exit Bankruptcy

Posted on

Recently, the Third Circuit reversed decisions issued by the Delaware Bankruptcy and District Courts and permitted first and second lien noteholders of Energy Future Intermediate Holding Company LLC and EFIH Finance Inc. to receive payment of a make-whole premium. In re Energy Future Holdings Corp., No. 16-1351 (3d Cir. Nov. 17, 2016).  The decision, which is largely grounded in New York law, departs from recent controversial decisions issued by the Bankruptcy Court and District Court for the Southern District of New York in the Momentive bankruptcy, which we have previously discussed here and here.  In Momentive, the courts reached the opposite conclusion on substantially similar facts.  In Momentive, the courts reached the opposite conclusion on substantially similar facts.  In addition to creating a split between the Third Circuit and the Southern District of New York, the ruling creates uncertainty regarding the ability for the debtors in the long-running EFH bankruptcy to confirm their proposed chapter 11 plan. READ MORE →

Orrick’s Marc Levinson Publishes Chapter 11 v. Chapter 9 Checklist in Practical Law

Posted on

 

In a recent article for Practical Law Bankruptcy, Restructuring Senior Counsel Marc Levinson prepared a comparison chart providing an overview of the major facets of a Chapter 9 municipal bankruptcy and comparing them to those of a traditional Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The Chart examines, among other crucial issues, commencement of the case, eligibility requirements, case administration, preference actions and plans. To read the full chart, please click here.

Orrick Lawyer Co-Authors Article Addressing Unique Confirmation Issues in Nonprofit Cases

Posted on

 

Orrick’s Evan Hollander co-authored an article for The Norton Annual Survey of Bankruptcy Law  (2016 Edition) addressing unique confirmation issues faced by nonprofit debtors in Chapter 11. The article addresses the applicability of the absolute priority rule, distinctive feasibility issues, and appropriate comparators when considering the best interests test in a nonprofit case. The authors identify emerging trends in nonprofit bankruptcy jurisprudence and suggest legislative action to help clarify certain ambiguities in the law. Read the full article here.

Foreign Debtors’ Access to U.S. Bankruptcy Courts: Expansion of “Property in the United States” Definition in Chapter 15 Cases

Posted on

When is a foreign entity eligible to file a chapter 15 petition?  This question has been the subject of debate over the last few years, and Judge Martin Glenn’s recent opinion in In re Berau Capital Resources Pte Ltd. will add to this debate.  Although the debtor in the case was foreign and did not have a place of business in the United States, Judge Glenn concluded that the debtor had satisfied the eligibility provisions under section 109(a) of the Bankruptcy Code because the New York choice of law and forum selection clause in the underlying bond indenture rendered the bonds “property in the United States.”  No. 15-11804 (MG), 2015 WL 6507871 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Oct. 28, 2015).

READ MORE →

Overview and Analysis of Select Provisions of the ABI Chapter 11 Reform Commission Final Report and Recommendations

Posted on

Part Three of Three

Earlier this year, Orrick’s Restructuring team began a three-part look at the American Bankruptcy Institute’s Chapter 11 Reform Report. In part one we looked at issues related to confirmation, valuation, financing and asset sales. Last month, in part two, we focused on modifications to the Bankruptcy Code’s “safe harbors” for derivatives and other complex financial transactions. This final part focuses on a variety of critical issues:  third party releases, rejection of collective bargaining agreements, professional compensation issues and treatment of executory contracts in bankruptcy.

To view part three, please click here.

Momentive: Case Update

Posted on

As an update to our prior blog post, on May 4, 2015, Vincent Briccetti, United States District Court Judge for the Southern District of New York, issued a decision affirming the Bankruptcy Court’s order confirming Momentive’s cramdown chapter 11 plan.  The decision was long awaited with the parties having completed briefing in December 2014.

Judge Briccetti followed the reasoning of the Bankruptcy Court and affirmed the use of the “formula” approach to determine the cramdown interest rate.  Under the formula approach, the cramdown interest rate is equal to the sum of a “risk free” base rate (such as the prime rate) plus a risk margin of 1-3%.  Judge Briccetti rejected the “efficient market” approach advocated by the first and 1.5 lien noteholders, affirming the view that rates should not include any profit to secured creditors.  Under the efficient market approach, the cramdown interest rate is based on the interest rate the market would pay on such a loan.

READ MORE →

Overview and Analysis of Select Provisions of the ABI Chapter 11 Reform Commission Final Report and Recommendations

and Posted on

Part Two of Three

Last month, Orrick’s Restructuring team began a three-part look at the American Bankruptcy Institute’s Chapter 11 Reform Report. In part one we looked at issues related to confirmation, valuation, financing and asset sales. This second part focuses on modifications to the Bankruptcy Code’s “safe harbors” for derivatives and other complex financial transactions. The final part will focus on professional compensation, treatment of executory contracts and other interesting topics.

To view the full article, please click here.