The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York recently issued an opinion in the case of In re Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. that significantly restricts the scope of setoff rights for energy traders and other participants in derivatives and forward commodity markets. Traditionally, bankruptcy law has required mutuality between the debtor and a creditor as a prerequisite for the exercise of setoff rights by the creditor.

A hotel property derives much of its value from its operator and brand. When a hotel owner is in distress with respect to its loan obligations, the operator also plays a critical role in the resolution of the workout process between the owner and the lender. The rights and obligations of the operator contained in its agreements with the owner and the lender affect any workout decision that the parties may make.

Making a will is regarded by most individuals as a necessary irritant ranking in popularity somewhere below a visit to the dentist or doctor. Following the unprecedented instability in the global financial markets since 2007, “systemic” risk (posed by the potential failure of large or complex cross-border financial institutions) was identified by regulators and legislators as one of the key areas requiring better supervision, in order to prevent a similar crisis in the future.

A recent decision in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida, In re Tousa,[1] has received widespread attention for its near wholesale rejection of insolvency “savings clauses,” and the resulting order requiring lenders to disgorge hundreds of millions of dollars. The decision raises numerous practical problems for participants in the secondary loan and derivatives markets, and more generally for commercial lenders and borrowers.

Background

On September 17, 2009, the U.S.

Opinion Serves to Remind Lenders That “Bankruptcy Remote” Does Not Mean “Bankruptcy Proof”

Judge Allan L. Gropper of the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York issued a much-anticipated order on August 11, 2009, in the challenge to the bankruptcy filings by certain special-purpose-entity (“SPE”) affiliates of General Growth Properties, Inc. (“GGP”).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently issued an opinion, reversing an earlier bankruptcy court ruling that had revived the question of whether a physical supply contract may qualify as a forward contract or swap agreement for purposes of the Bankruptcy Code. Previously, the bankruptcy court for the Eastern District of North Carolina ruled that what it termed a simple supply contract between a natural gas seller and an end-user, as a matter of law, does not constitute a swap agreement.

Beginning on September 15, 2008, Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (“LBHI”) and 16 of its affiliates (the “Debtors”) filed voluntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy petitions with the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. The resulting bankruptcy cases are jointly administered by the bankruptcy court for procedural purposes (collectively, the “Chapter 11 Proceeding”), but to date, the Debtors remain separate legal entities.  

As our economy slides into what could be a long and severe recession, retail bankruptcies are expected to increase. Landlords are presented with a myriad of problems when one of their tenants files for bankruptcy. Although many of the obligations and rights of landlords are well established by current bankruptcy law, a novel question arises when a tenant files for bankruptcy while a landlord is in the process of constructing tenant improvements or is on the verge of providing a tenant allowance. Given the tenant’s right to reject its lease, a landlord is faced with a difficult decision.

On November 14, 2008, a letter was sent to derivatives counterparties of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and its affiliates (collectively, “Lehman”) notifying them of Lehman’s Motion to Settle or Assign Derivative Contracts. The letter concerns a motion filed in the bankruptcy court by Lehman Brothers Debtors on November 13, 2008, which seeks to establish two procedures relating to its pre-petition derivative contracts with counterparties.