A creditor’s ability in a bankruptcy case to exercise rights that it has under applicable law to set off an obligation it owes to the debtor against amounts owed by the debtor to it, thereby converting its unsecured claim to a secured claim to the extent of the setoff, is an important entitlement.

This alert describes issues to consider when a derivatives dealer counterparty becomes insolvent.We address below issues involving termination of a master agreement, close-out netting of underlying trades and collateral. Even though this alert focuses on the bankruptcy of a dealer, many of the issues would also arise in connection with the bankruptcy of most non-dealer counterparties.

1. Existence of an Event of Default and Termination

a. Existence of an Event of Default

October 17, 2008 marked the third anniversary of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 ("BAPCPA"). This sweeping bankruptcy reform was designed to eliminate bankruptcy as an option for many would-be filers. While there is no doubt BAPCPA impacted bankruptcy filings both nationally and in West Virginia, recent trends suggest filings are on the rise and could reach pre-BAPCPA levels in the foreseeable future.

The 2005 Boom

The recent downturn in the financial sector and related bankruptcy filings have shed light on issues involving executive compensation, particularly in chapter 11 cases. Specifically, bankrupt companies often have paid substantial bonuses to executives prior to filing for bankruptcy protection and desire to retain those executives throughout the bankruptcy process through additional bonus payments and similar schemes. These types of payments have been criticized as giveaways to management.

The deepening international financial crisis and tightening credit market has led to a substantial increase in business bankruptcy filings. While the number of commercial bankruptcies has been increasing since 2007, business chapter 11 filings surged to even higher levels in the third quarter of 2008. In Delaware and the Southern District of New York, where many commercial cases are filed, business chapter 11 filings more than quadrupled from just over 100 in the third quarter of 2007 to almost 450 in the third quarter of 2008.

Over the past several weeks, several additional Lehman Brothers affiliate entities filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. For procedural purposes, these bankruptcy petitions will be jointly administered along with the petition filed by Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc., the lead debtor. These entities include:

On September 15, 2008, Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. filed a voluntary petition for bankruptcy protection, commencing the largest bankruptcy case in U.S. history. Initially, it appeared that many of the operating subsidiaries would remain outside of bankruptcy, but during the past several days, many of them have filed bankruptcy petitions as well. As of this writing, a complete list of the bankrupt Lehman entities (collectively, “Lehman”) is as follows:

In a recent decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, the court reversed a ruling against a D&O insurer in a coverage action arising from a bankruptcy case. In re: SRC Holding Corp., Nos. 07-1327/1335 (8th Cir. Oct. 27, 2008). Click here to read the Eighth Circuit's decision.

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.

In Aalfs v. Wirum (In re Straightline Investments, Inc.),1 the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit considered whether a post-petition factoring of accounts receivable by the debtor was an avoidable transfer under section 549 of the Bankruptcy Code. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Bankruptcy Court, finding that the post-petition transfer had been properly avoided and that the lower court was justified in allowing the trustee both to recover the accounts receivable and their proceeds and to retain the consideration paid by the transferee.