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.

For the fashion industry, one of the must-have, but hard to come by, items this season is a favorable refinancing deal. The recent volatility in the fashion market has reflected not just the ever-changing tastes of the cognoscenti, but also the rapidly shifting economic landscape confronting designers and retailers. The fashion industry has suffered acutely in the global financial crisis as consumers curb their spending, particularly in the luxury goods market. In fact, analysts have estimated that 12% of fashion companies will not survive the recession.  

On September 15, 2009, the United States Bankruptcy Court of the Southern District of New York ordered Metavante Corporation (“Metavante”) to make payments to Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc. (“LBSF”) under a prepetition interest rate swap agreement guaranteed by Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (“LBHI” and, together with LBSF, “Lehman”) after Metavante had suspended ordinary course settlement payments under the swap.1 Metavante claimed a contractual right to withhold payment under Section 2(a)(iii) of the 1992 ISDA Master Agreement as a result of Lehman’s bankruptcy.

The Bankruptcy Abuse and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (BAPCPA) purported to eliminate the ability of chapter 11 debtors in possession to pay bonuses to management through Key Employee Retention Plans. However, in recognition of the fact that a real need often exists to incentivize key employees to remain with a reorganizing or liquidating business, bankruptcy courts have approved incentive plans providing for payments to insiders and other employees. Such plans must be carefully crafted to avoid the restrictions on retention bonuses post-BAPCPA.

Introduction

The dearth of credit available for companies in financial distress means an asset sale may be the only way to save the business and jobs. It also presents unusually attractive investment opportunities for public and private companies, private equity and hedge funds, and other investors with capital and an ability to move expeditiously.

The limited liability company is widely used as the business entity of choice for a number of reasons, including its asset protection benefits. If a creditor of an LLC member attempts to seize the LLC member's interest (or the assets of the LLC for that matter), the creditor will have to deal with the charging order roadblock.

Part One of this article, published in the last edition of the Restructuring Review, examined recent developments in the gaming industry, focusing on strategies employed by gaming companies to increase liquidity and avoid insolvency. Part Two focuses on how potential buyers can use the bankruptcy process to purchase gaming facilities, free and clear of prior liens, and describes certain complications inherent in the acquisition of this type of asset.

Acquiring Gaming Facilities through Chapter 11

Sale Process

On Thursday, August 6, 2009, the United States Senate confirmed Justice Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court of the United States. As a former Judge on the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Judge Sotomayor’s jurisprudence includes a number of decisions involving noteworthy bankruptcy cases. This article provides a brief survey of these decisions.

On September 15, 2009, in an order read from the bench, the Honorable James M. Peck, Bankruptcy Judge in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of NewYork, and the presiding judge in the Chapter 11 proceedings of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (“LBHI”) and other associated Lehman Brothers United States entities, held a key provision of the standard ISDA Master Agreement unenforceable in a bankruptcy context.

In a significant decision recently handed down in the Lehman bankruptcy case, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held that a non-defaulting counterparty acted improperly by suspending payments under an open derivative contract with Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc. ("LBSF").