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.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (the “Eleventh Circuit”) has reinstated the controversial 2009 decision of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida (the “Bankruptcy Court”) that required a group of lenders to disgorge $421 million as fraudulent conveyances under sections 548 and 550 of the Bankruptcy Code.

We reported to you last month a significant development in the matter of In re TOUSA USA, when the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida issued its opinion and order reversing the controversial holdings of the Bankruptcy Court in the TOUSA chapter 11 case as to the so-called “Transeastern Lenders,” a group of lenders who had previously been ordered to disgorge nearly ½ billion dollars received in repayment of indebtedness which the Court found constituted a fraudulent transfer under Sections 548 and 550 of the Bankruptcy Code.

On February 11, 2011, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida reversed the controversial decision of the Bankruptcy Court in In re TOUSA that required a group of lenders to disgorge nearly a half billion dollars in repayment of indebtedness which the Bankruptcy Court found constituted a fraudulent transfer under Sections 548 and 550 of the Bankruptcy Code.