On September 15, 2008, Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (“LBHI”) filed for protection under chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code in New York. The case bears the caption In re Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., Case No. 08-13555, and has been assigned to Judge James M. Peck. Notably, the only Lehman entity thus far to file for chapter 11 protection is LBHI; neither the main “broker dealer” (Lehman Brothers, Inc.) nor other subsidiaries of Lehman filed for U.S. bankruptcy protection. However, Lehman Brothers Japan Inc. and Lehman Brothers Holdings Japan Inc.

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.

Resolving a split among various circuits, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that the exemption from state stamp taxes under section 1146(a) of the Bankruptcy Code does not apply to asset sales under section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code that took place before confirmation of a debtor’s chapter 11 plan—an event that may take months or years to accomplish.1

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.

In a recent decision,1 Judge Sweet of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York affirmed a bankruptcy court decision and refused to recognize under chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code either as “foreign main proceedings” or as “foreign nonmain proceedings” the well-publicized liquidations brought in the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands by two Bear Stearns hedge funds (the “Funds”).

If you thought, like many, that the Delaware Supreme Court’s decision in Trenwick Am. Litig. Trust v. Billet, 2007 Del. LEXIS 357 (Del. 2007), put the theory of “deepening insolvency” to rest, once and for all, well, think again. A recent decision, George L. Miller v. McCown De Leeuw & Co. (In re The Brown Schools), 2008 Bankr. LEXIS 1226 (Bankr. D. Del. April 24, 2008), from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware shows that “deepening insolvency” endures, albeit in reduced form.

In a recent decision1 in a claims objection proceeding in the Solutia chapter 11 case, the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York set clear limits on the allowance of secured claims.

In a closely watched case against Motorola, Inc. arising out of the Iridium chapter 11 case, Judge James M. Peck of the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York has adopted a market approach to determining prepetition solvency, finding “insufficient cause to set aside the verdict of solvency and capital adequacy already given to Iridium by the public markets.” In his 111-page opinion1 Judge Peck agreed with the Third Circuit’s approach in VFB LLC v.

In a decision rendered late last week, Judge Lifland of the Southern District of New York Bankruptcy Court refused to recognize under chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code, either as “foreign main proceedings” or as “foreign nonmain proceedings,” the well-publicized liquidations brought in the Cayman Islands by two Bear Stearns hedge funds that were victims of volatility in the sub-prime lending market.

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.