An unexpected controversy has arisen recently in the high-yield bond market, one involving limiting the available remedies following default in the wake of last year’s decision by the Southern District of New York in Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB v.

A recent decision by an appeals court of the State of New York highlights the deceptive complexity of bringing non-contractual claims by or on behalf of noteholders under the seemingly boilerplate remedies provisions in trust indentures. At issue was the standard indenture language that defines the authority of a trustee to bring claims under the indenture, and in particular whether the trustee has the power to bring non-contractual claims under its own volition (not directed by a majority in principal amount of bondholders) against persons not party to the indenture.

A lender cannot rely on its subjective intent in claiming that an otherwise properly filed UCC termination is ineffective, according to a recent decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Put another way, if a lender authorizes a termination statement, the termination is valid upon filing such UCC-3 even if the authorization was mistakenly given. While this result is not surprising, it does put lenders (and their counsel) on notice to be diligent in reviewing and authorizing the filing of UCC termination statements.

The Bottom Line:

This alert describes issues to consider when a derivatives dealer counterparty becomes insolvent.We address below issues involving termination of a master agreement, close-out netting of underlying trades and collateral. Even though this alert focuses on the bankruptcy of a dealer, many of the issues would also arise in connection with the bankruptcy of most non-dealer counterparties.

1. Existence of an Event of Default and Termination

a. Existence of an Event of Default

The Bottom Line

The Bottom Line

In CMH Liquidating Trust v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA, Case No. 16-cv-14434 (E.D. Mich. 2019) (“CMH”), the District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan held that an insurance policy that was renewed post-petition was still an executory contract, and thus, a provision denying coverage for acts leading to bankruptcy was a prohibited ipso facto clause.

What Happened?

The Bottom Line