The District Court for the Central District of California recently held that an assignee that acquired rights to a terminated swap agreement was not a "swap participant" under the Bankruptcy Code and, therefore, could not invoke safe harbors based on that status to foreclose on collateral in the face of the automatic stay. ^[1] The court ruled that the assignee acquired only a right to collect payment under the swap agreement, not the assignor's rights under the Bankruptcy Code to exercise remedies without first seeking court approval.

Background

UBS terminated its ISDA Master and FX transactions with Lehman Brothers Inc., was obligated to return about $23 million in collateral, wanted to set-off against that $23 million amounts owing by LBI to UBS affiliates as contemplated by the cross-affiliates set-off provision.

If you were waiting to hear what the English Court of Appeal had to say about the lower court decision in Marine Trade S.A. v. Pioneer Freight Futures Co. Ltd. you’ll be disappointed, as the appeal was dismissed by consent of the parties on October 22, 2010.

That darn Lehman Brothers bankruptcy sure is raising some interesting insolvency issues for derivatives market participants (and their lawyers of course). It’s interesting (at least for us insolvency nerds) to think about how some of those issues might play out under Canadian insolvency laws. Here are some thoughts on one of the recent cases with my Canadian spin.

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.