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.

On September 15, 2008, Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. filed a voluntary petition for bankruptcy protection, commencing the largest bankruptcy case in U.S. history. Initially, it appeared that many of the operating subsidiaries would remain outside of bankruptcy, but during the past several days, many of them have filed bankruptcy petitions as well. As of this writing, a complete list of the bankrupt Lehman entities (collectively, “Lehman”) is as follows:

Many clients have asked us for guidance as to the basic mechanics of dealing with the Lehman bankruptcy. Although this list is not exhaustive, we have set forth below some of the issues that you may want to think about. (This guidance is with respect to transactions entered into under the 1992 ISDA Master Agreement, and capitalized terms used herein are defined in that agreement.

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware on May 30, 2008, issued a memorandum opinion in which it refused to dismiss claims of breach of fiduciary duty against directors and officers of a company who approved the sale of the company’s assets on the eve of its filing for bankruptcy protection. In issuing its opinion inIn re Bridgeport Holdings Inc., the court provided some guidelines for directors and officers, particularly during challenging economic times.

In Monday’s 7-2 decision in Florida Department of Revenue v. Piccadilly Cafeterias, Inc., the Supreme Court of the United States held that the exemption from state transfer and stamp taxes in Section 1146(a) of the Bankruptcy Code does not apply to transfers that take place prior to the time the Bankruptcy Court confirms a reorganization plan. Section 1146(a) had been cited by bankruptcy debtors and their asset purchasers in seeking tax exemptions for Section 363 sales and other pre-confirmation transfers.

A recent decision out of a North Carolina bankruptcy court has reopened the question of whether a physical supply contract may qualify as a forward contract or swap agreement for purposes of the Bankruptcy Code. Although previous U.S. case law determined that those terms included commodity supply agreements, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina disagreed.

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld the dismissal of a suit by the shareholders and creditors of Vlasic Foods International, Inc., a former Campbell Soup subsidiary that had been “spun out” of the parent. The case, VFB, LLC v. Campbell Soup Co. (March 30, 2007), upholds the broad discretion of trial courts to determine valuation issues in the context of corporate transactions and, more specifi cally, gives great weight to market capitalization as a measure of value.