On 30 November 2011, New York Senate Bill 2713A was delivered to the desk of Governor Andrew Cuomo for signature. If signed by the Governor, the bill will add provisions to the New York Insurance Law regarding the treatment of qualified financial contracts in an insurance insolvency proceeding. “Qualified financial contracts” include derivatives, securities lending, repurchase agreements, futures contracts and other financial instruments. These contracts are typically documented under master agreements providing for netting of obligations between the parties.

The United States Supreme Court recently submitted to Congress an amendment to Bankruptcy Rule 2019 dealing with disclosure by groups of hedge funds and other distressed investors in reorganization cases. Unless Congress blocks its passage, which is unlikely, the amendment will become effective on Dec. 1, 2011.1 As shown below, the new rule streamlines and clarifies what had become a frequently litigated disclosure process.

Background

Thus far in 2011, six additional states have enacted the provisions from the National Association of Insurance Commissioners’ Insurer Receivership Model Act (“IRMA”) that govern the treatment of “qualified financial contracts” and “netting agreements.”

The IRMA provisions, which are modelled on the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, allow a party that has entered into a swap transaction with an insurer to exercise certain netting, collateral realization and termination rights without being precluded by the automatic stay that is imposed if the insurer becomes insolvent.

United States District Court Judge Alan S. Gold, on February 11, 2011, reversed a Florida bankruptcy court’s controversial October 2009 fraudulent transfer judgment1 against a group of lenders based on their receipt of a $421 million loan repayment in July 2007. 3V Capital Master Fund, et al., v. Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Tousa, Inc., et al, Case No. 10-60017-CIV (S.D. Fla. Feb.

On 18 January 2011, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) issued an interim final rule (the “Rule”) with request for comments regarding certain provisions of Title II of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd- Frank Act”). Title II creates the Orderly Liquidation Authority (“OLA”), which is a mechanism under which “covered financial companies” can be liquidated in a uniform fashion rather than under inconsistent insolvency regimes.

The Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York recently considered the enforceability of claims for "make-whole" amounts and damages for breach of a "no-call" provision. In re Chemtura Corp., No. 09-11233 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Oct. 21, 2010) ("Chemtura"). These provisions are generally enforceable outside of bankruptcy, but enforceability in the context of a bankruptcy case is still unclear. In Chemtura, the court did not actually rule on enforceability but approved a settlement that allocated value to creditors on account of a make-whole clause and a no-call provision.

The treatment of derivatives, or “qualified financial contracts”, under state insurance insolvency laws has received increased attention since the financial crisis. Four states passed laws in 2010 that allow for the exercise of certain netting collateral and termination provisions in an insurance insolvency without regard to the automatic stay mechanism and similar laws are anticipated in other states in 2011. Federal laws provide a level of certainty with respect to the treatment of certain swap agreement provisions in a general corporate bankruptcy. The U.S.

The current cycle of Chapter 11 corporate bankruptcies involves many cases where the debtor seeks to achieve a balance-sheet restructuring by converting debt into equity. When consensus cannot be achieved, junior stakeholders (i.e., second lien creditors, unsecured creditors and/or equity) will often contest plan confirmation on the grounds that the proposed plan provides more than 100% recovery to the senior creditors. Valuation plays the central role in these cases.

A New York bankruptcy judge held on October 4, 2010, that second lien lenders could object to a debtor’s bid procedures approved by the first lien lenders despite the terms of an intercreditor agreement inIn re Boston Generating, LLC, No. 10-14419 (SCC) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Oct. 4, 2010).1 The intercreditor agreement provided the first lien lenders with the “exclusive right to…make determinations regarding the…sale” of the collateral. According to the court, however, the agreement did not expressly preclude the second lien lenders from objecting to bid procedures.

On March 15, 2010 Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. and its affiliated debtors (the “Debtors”) filed a motion (the “Motion”) with the Bankruptcy Court overseeing the Debtors’ Chapter 11 cases (the “Court”) seeking authorization to establish certain claims and alternative dispute resolution procedures designed to expedite the process of reconciling claims filed against the Debtors’ estates.

The procedures, set forth in detail in an exhibit to the proposed order filed with the Motion, are summarized as follows: