On September 15, 2008, Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. ("Lehman Holdings") filed for Chapter 11 in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (Case No. 08-13555). None of Lehman Holdings’ U.S. subsidiaries have filed for bankruptcy at this point. In addition, while Lehman Holdings has certain subsidiaries that are regulated entities (e.g., banks, insurance companies, etc.), none of those entities has yet been placed into any kind of insolvency proceeding by the applicable regulators.
Early this morning, Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. filed a notice, concerning the possible assumption and assignment of executory contracts to Barclays Capital as part of its purchase of the core assets of Lehman Brothers' U.S. broker-dealer business.
The credit default swap (“CDS”) has never been tested in bankruptcy proceedings on any significant scale, particularly under recent amendments to the Bankruptcy Code. In part, this is because the CDS market is a very recent phenomenon. CDS market participants also make considerable efforts to avoid holding a credit default swap where the counterparty has gone into bankruptcy.
As has been widely reported, on September 15, 2008, Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. ("Lehman") filed for protection under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the "Bankruptcy Court"). Except for LB 745 LLC which is the Lehman entity that was formed to own Lehman's headquarters in New York, the other subsidiaries (the "Lehman Subsidiaries") of Lehman have not filed for bankruptcy protection as of the time of publication of this Alert.
Debtors operating under Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection routinely sell some or all of their assets during the course of their bankruptcy case. As part of a bankruptcy court approved sale process, debtors often request that the court exempt such transfers from stamp taxes1 pursuant to Bankruptcy Code § 1146(a). The exemption generally reduces obligations encumbering a debtor’s property and allows for a greater portion of sale proceeds to be available for distribution to creditors.
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.
USCA Ninth Circuit, September 23, 2008
In In re Bryan Road LLC,1 the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida considered whether a waiver of the automatic stay provision included in a prepetition workout agreement is enforceable in the debtor’s subsequent bankruptcy. The Bankruptcy Court enforced the waiver and held the creditor was not bound by the automatic stay after engaging in a four-factor analysis of the agreement and the circumstances surrounding its execution. The Bankruptcy Court cautioned, however, that relief from stay provisions are neither per se enforceable nor self-executing.
In Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. Moran Towing Corp. (In re Bethlehem Steel Corp.),1 the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held that preferential transfer claims were not arbitrable. The Court reasoned that because the avoidance powers did not belong to the debtor, but rather were creditor claims that could only be brought by a trustee or debtor-in-possession, they were not subject to the arbitration clauses in contracts to which the creditors were not parties.
The Dispute and the Arbitration Clauses