On September 8, 2015, a federal district court invalidated a portion of the Georgia post-judgment garnishment statute in Strickland v. Alexander, No. 1:12-CV-02735-MHS (N.D. Ga.). Senior Judge Marvin Shoob found that the statute was constitutionally deficient on due process grounds, insofar as it fails to require:

Introduction

A recent decision out of a North Carolina bankruptcy court has reopened the question of whether a physical supply contract may qualify as a forward contract or swap agreement for purposes of the Bankruptcy Code. Although previous U.S. case law determined that those terms included commodity supply agreements, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina disagreed.

In Monday’s 7-2 decision in Florida Department of Revenue v. Piccadilly Cafeterias, Inc., the Supreme Court of the United States held that the exemption from state transfer and stamp taxes in Section 1146(a) of the Bankruptcy Code does not apply to transfers that take place prior to the time the Bankruptcy Court confirms a reorganization plan. Section 1146(a) had been cited by bankruptcy debtors and their asset purchasers in seeking tax exemptions for Section 363 sales and other pre-confirmation transfers.

Many clients have asked us for guidance as to the basic mechanics of dealing with the Lehman bankruptcy. Although this list is not exhaustive, we have set forth below some of the issues that you may want to think about. (This guidance is with respect to transactions entered into under the 1992 ISDA Master Agreement, and capitalized terms used herein are defined in that agreement.

On September 15, 2008, Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. filed a voluntary petition for bankruptcy protection, commencing the largest bankruptcy case in U.S. history. Initially, it appeared that many of the operating subsidiaries would remain outside of bankruptcy, but during the past several days, many of them have filed bankruptcy petitions as well. As of this writing, a complete list of the bankrupt Lehman entities (collectively, “Lehman”) is as follows:

As our economy slides into what could be a long and severe recession, retail bankruptcies are expected to increase. Landlords are presented with a myriad of problems when one of their tenants files for bankruptcy. Although many of the obligations and rights of landlords are well established by current bankruptcy law, a novel question arises when a tenant files for bankruptcy while a landlord is in the process of constructing tenant improvements or is on the verge of providing a tenant allowance. Given the tenant’s right to reject its lease, a landlord is faced with a difficult decision.

On November 14, 2008, a letter was sent to derivatives counterparties of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and its affiliates (collectively, “Lehman”) notifying them of Lehman’s Motion to Settle or Assign Derivative Contracts. The letter concerns a motion filed in the bankruptcy court by Lehman Brothers Debtors on November 13, 2008, which seeks to establish two procedures relating to its pre-petition derivative contracts with counterparties.

Beginning on September 15, 2008, Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (“LBHI”) and 16 of its affiliates (the “Debtors”) filed voluntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy petitions with the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. The resulting bankruptcy cases are jointly administered by the bankruptcy court for procedural purposes (collectively, the “Chapter 11 Proceeding”), but to date, the Debtors remain separate legal entities.  

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently issued an opinion, reversing an earlier bankruptcy court ruling that had revived the question of whether a physical supply contract may qualify as a forward contract or swap agreement for purposes of the Bankruptcy Code. Previously, the bankruptcy court for the Eastern District of North Carolina ruled that what it termed a simple supply contract between a natural gas seller and an end-user, as a matter of law, does not constitute a swap agreement.