Changes may be coming to the Bankruptcy Code’s safe harbor provisions.[1] In 2012 the American Bankruptcy Institute established a Commission to Study the Reform of Chapter 11 (the “ABI Commission”), composed of many well-respected restructuring practitioners, including two of the original drafters of the Bankruptcy Code, whose advice holds great weight in the restructuring community.

A bankruptcy judge in the Southern District of New York recently held that section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code does not prevent a debtor’s creditors from bringing state-law fraudulent conveyance actions that challenge a leveraged buyout of the debtor. Weisfelner v. Fund 1 (In re Lyondell Chem. Co.), No. 10-4609 (REG), --- B.R. ----, 2014 WL 118036 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Jan. 14, 2014).

TheLehman Brothers bankruptcy court has determined that the contractually specified methodology for conducting the liquidation of a swap agreement is protected by the safe harbor provisions of the bankruptcy, even if the selected methodology would be more favorable to the non-defaulting counterparty than the liquidation methodology that would apply absent the bankruptcy.See Michigan State Housing Dev. Auth. v. Lehman Bros. Deriv. Prods. Inc. (In re Lehman Bros. Holdings Inc.), No. 08-13555, ---B.R.

A Western District of New York bankruptcy court has held that the safe harbor provisions of section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code apply to leveraged buy-outs of privately held securities. See Cyganowski v. Lapides (In re Batavia Nursing Home, LLC), No. 12-1145 (Bankr. W.D.N.Y. July 29, 2013).

On June 25, 2013, the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Court”) issued a memorandum decision in the Lehman Brothers SIPA proceeding¹ holding that claims asserted by certain repurchase agreement (“repo”) counterparties (the “Representative Claimants”) did not qualify for treatment as customer claims under SIPA.

Few courts have construed the meaning of “repurchase agreement” as used in the Bankruptcy Code, so the recent HomeBanc¹ case out of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware is a must-read for “repo” counterparties. The principal issue in HomeBanc was whether several zero purchase price repo transactions under the parties’ contract for the sale and repurchase of mortgage-backed securities fell within the definition of a “repurchase agreement” in Section 101(47) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Asbestos settlement trusts are a major source of payment of asbestos claims in the United States, with over fifty such trusts instituted as of March, 2011.¹ While insurance recoveries are a principal source of funding for these trusts, courts generally have not allowed insurers to challenge chapter 11 plans where they are found to be “insurance neutral.” A plan is insurance neutral where the plan does not increase an insurer’s pre-petition liabilities or impair an insurer’s contractual rights under its insurance policies.

An article by the National Underwriter Company discusses a recent Moody’s report that asbestos claims are again on the rise after years of declining or flat claims.¹ This has led several insurers to increase their asbestos reserves and Moody’s views this trend as a warning flag for the property and casualty insurance industry as a whole.

On April 26, 2011, the Supreme Court approved a number of amendments to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. In particular, the Supreme Court amended Bankruptcy Rule 2019 to clarify the disclosure required of certain parties in interest in a chapter 9 or 11 bankruptcy case.1 These amendments were drafted by a panel of bankruptcy judges and restructuring experts and are intended to resolve a split in decisions concerning the proper application of the current Bankruptcy Rule 2019.