The “safe harbor” provisions of the Bankruptcy Code protect firms that trade derivatives, and other participants in financial and commodity markets, from the rigidity that bankruptcy law imposes on most parties. Since their inception in 1982, the safe harbor statutes have gradually grown broader, to reflect a Congressional intent of protecting against secondary shocks reverberating through those markets after a major bankruptcy. The liberalizing of safe harbors traces – and may well be explained by – the rapidly expanding use of derivatives contracts generally.
Oregon’s $29 million corporate excise tax claim against the taxpayers’ parent company was held to violate both the Due Process and Commerce Clauses of the U.S. Constitution by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. Oregon claimed that Washington Mutual, Inc. (WMI) was liable for its subsidiaries’ tax because WMI had (as the parent corporation) filed consolidated corporate tax returns on behalf of itself and its subsidiaries and therefore could be held jointly and severally liable for the tax due.
On January 4, 2013, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois issued an opinion that strikes a significant blow against the rights of futures customers that might otherwise enjoy the Bankruptcy Code’s safe harbor protections. The opinion, arising out of the Chapter 11 bankruptcy case of Sentinel Management Group, Inc. (Sentinel), fashions a new exception to the safe harbor protections in the event of distributions or redemptions to customers of a failed futures commission merchant (FCM).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit took a bite out of a bagel store’s bankruptcy petition by holding that sales taxes are non-dischargeable “trust fund” taxes rather than excise taxes. In Re: Michael Calabrese, Jr., No. 11-3793 (3d. Cir. July 20, 2012). After not having enough dough to pay their debts, Don’s What a Bagel, Inc. and its individual owner both filed for bankruptcy protection.
On October 31, the MF Global enterprise collapsed into bankruptcy and a number of related insolvency proceedings. Amid allegations of improper commingling of customer accounts and rumors of misbegotten proprietary Eurobond trades, two unregulated entities – MF Global Finance USA Inc. and MF Global Holdings Ltd. (the Unregulated Debtors) – filed voluntary bankruptcy petitions on October 31, 2011. Later the same day, the Securities Investor Protection Corporation filed a complaint in the U.S.
It will be almost Christmas before we know, at least for portfolio companies that can file in the Delaware Bankruptcy Court. The case that will provide guidance is Friendly Ice Cream Corp., where Sun Capital, which is both equity owner and term lender, put Friendly into Chapter 11 on October 5, 2011. It did so after agreeing to a Section 363 purchase agreement with Friendly that would allow a Sun affiliate to buy assets (including desirable lease locations) free and clear by credit bidding outstanding pre-petition term debt owed to Sun.
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.
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).