On Jan. 25, 2010, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Bankruptcy Court”) held that a trust deed provision reversing a priority of payment waterfall upon the bankruptcy of a credit support provider under a swap agreement is unenforceable under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (the “Bankruptcy Code”).

On January 25, Judge Peck of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York entered a declaratory judgment in favor of Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc. (LBSF) in a case examining a collateralized debt obligation (CDO) transaction and concerning the effect of event of default provisions on the payment priorities of LBSF as swap counterparty under certain swap agreements and the holders of certain credit-linked synthetic portfolio notes. The payment waterfalls (Priority Provisions) of most CDO transactions give priority to swap counterparties over noteholders.

Court Broadens Interpretation of Code Sections Invalidating Ipso Facto Contract Provisions

In a recent Hunton & Williams client alert, we discussed some of the issues relating to the termination of credit default swap agreements that were pending before the Lehman bankruptcy court, including the enforceability of so-called “flip clauses.” (“Swap Termination and the Subordination of Termination Payments in the Lehman Bankruptcy,” December 2009.) Recently, the court ruled for Lehman on many of these issues. The court’s ruling (Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc.

Over the next two years, billions of dollars in commercial real estate loans are expected to mature — loans that many property owners and landlords will not be able to pay off or refinance. As a result, a number of landlords that have purchased, built, renovated and/or refinanced their properties with short-term debt during the previous five years will find themselves in a precarious position. Market forces, combined with the tightening of credit markets, leave landlords holding over-leveraged property, unable to refinance their shortterm debt because of a lack of equity.

The collection of foreclosure and bankruptcy-related fees in Chapter 13 bankruptcy cases has been the cause of much grief for mortgage servicers of late. Learning how to do it right on the front end of a bankruptcy is the remedy. Unfortunately, the law varies to a wide degree depending upon the state where the borrower resides. This leaves mortgage lenders and servicers with little ability to streamline activities on a nationwide basis.

Introduction

Introduction

A declaration of bankruptcy, according to Article 645 of the Commercial Transactions Law, can be imposed on any trader who ceases to pay some or all of its commercial debts. While a debtor’s cessation of payment is a presumption against him, the trader might not be considered bankrupt if the failure to pay is due to a dispute regarding the debt. In other words, it is important to prove that the debtor ceased to pay a certain commercial debt due to financial distress and credit issues.

The proposed changes to the Saudi Arabian bankruptcy regime will provide the judiciary the right to obligate creditors to accept a settlement proposed by the debtor (the “new Law”).

The Ministry of Commerce and Investment is currently in the latter stages of reforming the Kingdom’s bankruptcy laws and regulations. The new Law is intended to replace certain sections in the Commercial Court Law and the Bankruptcy Protecting Settlement Law dealing with bankruptcy.