An examination of the impact of an insolvent respondent in an arbitration.

In 2008, the catastrophic effect of the credit crunch spread to most world economies, touching governments, companies and individuals alike. As in previous recessions, insolvency is affecting increasing numbers of individuals and companies. UK government figures show that individual insolvencies went up by 8.8% in the third quarter of 2008, with corporate liquidations up by 10.5% in the same period. Commentators predict that this trend will only accelerate through 2009.

The Sixth Circuit recently held that section 2-702(3) of the Uniform Commercial Code (the "UCC"), which permits good faith purchasers to defeat a valid right to reclaim, does not allow a secured creditor to defeat that right.[1] The Sixth Circuit found that the security interest held by a DIP lender could not be used to defeat the right of a reclaiming creditor under the UCC or pre-BAPCPA section 546(c) of the Bankruptcy Code. This decision may impact the way bankruptcy courts consider reclamation claims under revised section 546(c) of the Bankruptcy Code.

In the very early hours on September 20, 2008, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the "Bankruptcy Court") entered an order (the "Sale Order") approving the sale of substantially all of the assets of Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. ("Lehman"), LB 745 LLC and Lehman Brothers, Inc. (collectively, the "Lehman Sellers") to Barclays Capital, Inc. free and clear of all liens claims, encumbrances and other interests.

As has been widely reported, on September 15, 2008, Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. ("Lehman") filed for protection under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the "Bankruptcy Court"). Except for LB 745 LLC which is the Lehman entity that was formed to own Lehman's headquarters in New York, the other subsidiaries (the "Lehman Subsidiaries") of Lehman have not filed for bankruptcy protection as of the time of publication of this Alert.

We look at the recent case of Barlow Clowes International Ltd & Ors v Henwood [2008] EWCA Civ 577 which considers when a domicile of origin can be revived.

Background

In its judgment in Haine v Sec of State for BERR and the liquidator of Compounds Section Ltd the Court of Appeal has decided an important question on employer insolvency.

Customers dealing with troubled automotive suppliers often decide to resource production to other suppliers rather than facilitate a true restructuring of the troubled supplier's business. Such resourcing, however, generally cannot be done overnight. Tier 1 suppliers or original equipment manufacturers ("OEMs") often take months to resource production. Because of the "just in time" production process, Tier 1 suppliers and OEMs often cannot afford to be without component parts or tooling for the period of time that it may take to resource.

In Dynamex Friction Ltd v Amicus an administrator had dismissed the entire workforce immediately on being appointed because the company had no money to pay its debts. At that time no transferee of the insolvent business had been identified and there was no prospect of a sale. However, the administrator did shortly afterwards agree a sale of the remaining company assets to a newly formed purchaser company that had links with the directors of the ‘old’ company.

The auto parts supply industry has been beset by financial problems for several decades. Original equipment manufacturers ("OEMs") typically have the right to immediately seize their tooling, which the supplier holds in order to make parts. This allows OEMs to quickly move the tooling to another supplier and avoid an assembly line shutdown if the supplier fails. The right to immediately reclaim tooling, however, may be restricted if the supplier files for bankruptcy.

In previous Alerts, we have addressed the complexities of claims in bankruptcy. Likewise, trading in claims and securities can present challenges. Difficulties have arisen in large Chapter 11 reorganizations as constituencies engaged in the Chapter 11 process, who are major players in the case, seek to trade in securities relating to that case. This Alert explores the impact that some trading activities may have on potential recoveries in the bankruptcy and the help (and impact) of the Internal Revenue Code.