LE PRINCIPE DE PRIMAUTE DU DROIT COMMUNAUTAIRE NE SAURAIT FAIRE ECHEC AUX REGLES TRES RESTRICTIVES DE DROIT INTERNE DES PROCEDURES COLLECTIVES (CASS. COM., 23 AVRIL 2013, F-P+B, N°12-19.184)
On June 11, Southern District of New York Judge Jed Rakoff dismissed the complaint of the Trustee for the SemGroup estate seeking to avoid a novation made to Barclays pre-bankruptcy under a swap agreement. The Court held that the pre-bankruptcy transaction constituted a safe harbored transfer made in connection with a swap agreement and thus could not be avoided by the estate. This case is one of a number in recent years that treats the safe harbors, and particularly the section 546 safe harbors, as broadly protective of non-debtor transferees in financial transactions.
On June 10, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals held in the Quebecor World (USA) Inc. bankruptcy that payments made by a company in purchasing notes issued by an affiliate constituted transfers made in connection with a securities contract. Therefore, the payments were protected from avoidance by a "safe harbor" under section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code. Orrick covered the Quebecor decision in depth in the linked client memo.
Pre-financial crisis, interest rate derivatives were widely recognized as a valuable part of the municipal issuer’s financial toolkit. Post-crisis, they have been a thorn in the side of many issuers, resulting in expensive litigation with failed swap providers – most notably the Lehman and Ambac derivatives trading subsidiaries – and public criticism of municipal issuers said to have fallen prey to more sophisticated providers.
Patriot Coal became the third major debtor in the last year to modify benefits or reject a CBA under sections 1113 and 1114 of the Bankruptcy Code. Following similar rulings in the Hostess and AMR Corporation bankruptcies, Bankruptcy Judge Kathy Surratt-States on May 29, 2013, granted Patriot authorization to modify agreements with the United Mine Workers of America and reject union CBAs.
On May 28, Freddie Mac issued Bulletin 2013-9, which extends for two months the date by which servicers must adhere to certain new requirements related to the management of law firms for default servicing, bankruptcies, and related litigation.
On May 29, Patriot Coal (Patriot) became the third major debtor in the last year to receive court approval to modify union benefits or reject a CBA under sections 1113 and 1114 of the Bankruptcy Code. Following similar rulings in the Hostess and AMR Corporation bankruptcies, Judge Kathy Surratt-States granted Patriot authorization to modify certain benefits and reject collective bargaining agreements.
PROCEDURE INTERNATIONALE D’INSOLVABILITE
SEUL LE TRIBUNAL QUI OUVRE LA PROCEDURE PRINCIPALE A L’ENCONTRE D’UNE PERSONNE MORALE EST COMPETENT POUR PRONONCER UNE INTERDICTION DE GERER CONTRE LE DIRIGEANT DE CELLE-CI (CASS.COM. 22 JANVIER 2013 N°11-17.968 (N°55 F-PB), MAJOT C/ STE BECHERET- THIERRY-SENECHAL- GORRIAS ES. QUAL.)
The Madrid Provincial Court (Section 28) ruling of December 7, 2012, and the Barcelona Provincial Court (Section 15) ruling of October 4, 2012, judged the insolvency categorisation of a credit the receivers had categorised as subordinate because they held that the creditor company belonged to the same corporate group as the insolvent company.6 In both cases, the provincial courts analysed the concept of group for the purposes of insolvency before and after the reform of the Insolvency Act introduced under Act 38/2011.
The Supreme Court clarified the insolvency categorisation for interest rate swap contracts, classifying them as insolvency credits, as they fail to meet the functional synallagma requirement, which establishes functional reciprocal obligations.