In the Spring of 2007, Canada’s Parliament amended several federal insolvency statutes so as to transfer the definition of the class of protected contracts known as “eligible financial contracts” (EFCs) from the federal insolvency statutes themselves to their respective associated regulations. On November 15, the Treasury Board approved the finalized regulations to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the Winding-up and Restructuring Act, the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, and the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act.

All businesses know that one key to profitability is risk management. Particularly in such industries as oil and natural gas, eligible financial contracts have emerged as an invaluable tool to hedge the risk associated with volatile foreign currency exchange, interest rates and commodity prices. Indeed, a large business has developed proffering over-the-counter derivatives (or ‘swaps’) and standardized exchange-traded derivatives (or ‘futures’) to do just that.

Clients active in commodities markets (e.g. large consumers of copper and other metals) may be affected by the collapse of MF Global which was recently placed into Chapter 11 process in the US and into Administration in the UK. MFGlobal was an active clearing agent on numerous metal exchanges including the London Metal Exchange.

In a decision handed down just before the end of term, auditors have won an important House of Lords ruling limiting their liability in cases where a “one man” company is used as a vehicle for fraud. The Law Lords dismissed by a majority of three to two a negligence claim brought against an audit firm for failing to detect a massive fraud at Stone & Rolls, a trading company that fell in the late 1990s – holding that the liquidators could not bring a claim for damages when the company itself was responsible for the fraud.

Background

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.

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.

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION v. LAKE SHORE ASSET MANAGEMENT LTD. (May 11, 2011)

Oil price movement through 2014 and into 2015 is a consequence of market fundamentals. Europe’s continued economic woes, paired with the slowdown in China’s economy, have led to a fall in demand for oil.

At the same time, the growing U.S. shale-oil boom (over which OPEC has no control) and the pick-up in drilling in Libya have led to an excess of supply. However, in the past few months the issue has switched from how quickly oil prices have fallen, to how much further they have to fall.

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.

As NASA engineers breathe a sigh of relief after the “seven minutes of terror” that was the rover Curiosity’s landing on Mars, recipients of payments under commodity forward contracts can—at least in the Fifth Circuit—rest assured that agreements that meet the basic definition of forward contract contained in section 101(25) of the Bankruptcy Code will be protected from preference liability should their counterparties find themselves in bankruptcy. Last Thursday, in Lightfoot v. MXEnegry Electric, Inc. (In re MBS Management Servs., Inc.). No. 11-30553 (5th Cir. Aug.