The Fourth Circuit’s reversal of the bankruptcy court’s narrow reading of swap agreement clarifies the nature of agreements entitled to broad protections under the Bankruptcy Code, but until the decision is fully implemented on remand, swap participants will bear increased risk in hedging transactions.

The decision in In re SemCrude, L.P., et al. prohibiting parties from contracting around Bankruptcy Code section 553’s mutuality requirement may disrupt customary business practices, including those widely used in the energy, natural gas and crude oil markets, because it rules that contracting for cross affiliate netting does not “create” the mutuality required for setoff.

As we have recently noted, the federal banking agencies have worked together to expand the pool of investors eligible to bid to acquire failing depository institutions. See our 21st Century Money, Banking & Commerce Alert entitled “OCC Approves Shelf Charter for National Banks to Encourage New Investment” (Nov. 25, 2008). The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) has recently modified the receivership process in less obvious ways that also may have important ramifications for investors. 

Sellers should be proactive in taking steps to protect themselves from a distressed buyer’s non-payment.  

In the current economic downturn, sellers are dealing with many formerly good customers whose financial health is deteriorating. To protect their interests, sellers should assess their rights under applicable contracts and law and develop a strategy to minimize their exposure.

Step 1 – Assess the Parties’ Contractual Rights

The European Commission has approved the plan by the Italian authorities to sell the assets of the airline Alitalia, which had entered into financial difficulties, under a special insolvency procedure. The Commission concluded that the sale of the assets would not constitute a subsidy prohibited under EU State aid rules provided the assets are sold at market value and other conditions have been satisfied. An independent trustee has been appointed to oversee the sale by the administrator assigned under the special insolvency procedure.

Two recent decisions by the Delaware Supreme Court clarify the fiduciary duties owed to creditors by directors of Delaware corporations that are insolvent or operating in the zone of insolvency. First, in North American Catholic Educational Programming Foundation, Inc. v. Gheewalla, the Delaware Supreme Court, in a case of first impression, addressed the ability of creditors to assert claims for breach of fiduciary duty against directors of a Delaware corporation that is insolvent or operating within the zone of insolvency.

On July 28, 2008, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) published for comment a proposed rule that would require certain troubled depository institutions to maintain records of their qualified financial contracts (“QFCs”) in order to provide the FDIC with basic information when the agency is appointed as receiver. 73 Fed. Reg. 43635. Comments on the proposed rule must be received by the FDIC by September 26, 2008.

Re Cheyne Finance PLC

The UK courts recently interpreted the definition of insolvency in a way which can lead to an insolvency default being triggered earlier than before.

In the case of Florida Dept. of Revenue v. Piccadilly Cafeterias, Inc.,¹ the United States Supreme Court ruled that the exemption from the payment of stamp taxes or similar taxes on transfers of property of a Chapter 11 debtor’s estate, contained in section 1146(a) of the Bankruptcy Code,² does not apply to transfers of property made before a Chapter 11 plan is confirmed.

In a case involving a bankruptcy reorganization in which a trustee in bankruptcy was given the right to pursue claims of misappropriation or infringement (but not ownership of the bankrupt’s intellectual property), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the district court finding that the no trustee had standing to bring suit. Morrow, et al. v. Microsoft Corp., Case Nos. 06-1512, -1518, -1537 (Fed. Cir., Sept. 19, 2007 (Moore, J.; Prost, J., dissenting).