A recent opinion by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York affirms a 2010 ruling by the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy court, which rendered certain netting and setoff provisions unenforceable in bankruptcy. The core holding – that a counterparty cannot offset pre-petition and post-petition amounts – should come as no surprise to market participants.

On January 25, 2011, Lehman Brothers filed an amended version of its plan of liquidation (the Plan). Contrasted against its predecessor version, the Plan creates some winners and some losers in terms of the percentage of projected payouts to creditors of various Lehman entities. More important than the percentage distribution, however, may be the means by which the debtors seek to fix a creditor’s claim amount. With regard to claims based on derivatives contracts, Lehman proposes to take a novel – and for holders of those claims, potentially alarming – approach.

With the flood of debt-heavy capital structures created over the past decade, bankruptcy courts have been left to clean up the remnants of many failed transactions. Given the volume of debt provided, courts are likely to continue to be called upon to determine the relative rights of creditors that result from multi-tiered debt structures.

After months of negotiations and conferences among key legislators, President Obama signed into law a final version of regulatory reform legislation on July 21, 2010. More than 2,000 pages long, the “Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act” (the Act) provides new legal guidelines for both “financial companies” and non-financial companies and instructs federal agencies to develop a myriad of regulations to enforce the concepts provided in the Act.

In an interesting twist on a run-of-themill case regarding the personal liability of a corporate officer for unremitted sales taxes, the New York State Division of Tax Appeals held an owner (“Petitioner”) personally liable for sales tax even though the corporation was in Chapter 11 bankruptcy and was being run by a bankruptcy court-approved management company. In re Eugene Dinino, Docket Nos. 822605, 822606, 822607, 822608, 822609, 822610 (N.Y.S. Div. of Tax App. June 24, 2010).

Reversing both the bankruptcy court and the district court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that a trademark licensing agreement had been substantially performed and was therefore not subject to rejection under §365(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. In re Exide Technologies, Case No. 08-1872 (3d Cir., June 1, 2010) (Roth, J.) (Ambro, J., concurring).

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York recently issued an opinion in the case of In re Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. that significantly restricts the scope of setoff rights for energy traders and other participants in derivatives and forward commodity markets. Traditionally, bankruptcy law has required mutuality between the debtor and a creditor as a prerequisite for the exercise of setoff rights by the creditor.

KEY POINTS

• A US Bankruptcy Court decision held that loans to a homebuilding company that subsequently filed for bankruptcy constituted a fraudulent transfer.

A hotel property derives much of its value from its operator and brand. When a hotel owner is in distress with respect to its loan obligations, the operator also plays a critical role in the resolution of the workout process between the owner and the lender. The rights and obligations of the operator contained in its agreements with the owner and the lender affect any workout decision that the parties may make.

On October 29, 2009, the California Court of Appeal, Sixth District, in Berg & Berg Enterprises, LLC v. Boyle, et al., unequivocally ruled that, under California law, directors of either an insolvent corporation or a corporation in the more elusively defined “zone of insolvency” do not owe a fiduciary duty of care or loyalty to creditors. In so ruling, California joins Delaware in clarifying directors’ duties when the corporation is insolvent or in the zone of insolvency.

Background