Introduction
Introduction:
Setoff is a doctrine based as much on practical considerations as on equitable ones.
In these uncertain times, boards of directors face many important decisions about a company’s present and future actions, including reduction or suspension of dividends, layoffs, asset sales, unsolicited takeover offers, liquidation and even insolvency proceedings. In making these decisions, directors should remember their overarching responsibility for continuing oversight and informed decision-making.
C.A. No. 3017-CC (Del. Ch. February 24, 2009)
On February 24, 2009, Chancellor Chandler issued a two-page order in Fisk Ventures, LLC v. Segal, et al. addressing several aspects of the Order and Decree of Judicial Dissolution of Genitrix, as to which the parties could not agree upon the form and content of the petitioner’s form of order. One of Chancellor Chandler’s conclusions merits additional attention.
One of the key protections afforded to secured creditors under the Bankruptcy Code is the right of a holder of a secured claim to credit bid the allowed amount of its claim as part of a sale process under section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code. Specifically, section 363(k) of the Bankruptcy Code provides that:
Earlier this year, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware ruled that a nondebtor cannot effect a “triangular” setoff of the amounts owed between it and three affiliated debtors, even if the parties had entered into pre-petition contracts that expressly contemplated multiparty setoff.1 In reaching its decision, the Court relied principally on the plain language of section 553(a) of the United States Bankruptcy Code, which limits setoff to “mutual” obligations — i.e., direct obligations between a single obligor and obligee.
C.A. No. 4499-VCL (Del. Ch. Apr. 27, 2009) (Lamb, V.C.) (Letter opinion).
The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware recently issued a decision addressing triangular set-off provisions, which potentially has very far-reaching implications for the enforceability of contractual set-off rights under U.S. law.
Companies that engage in multiple transactions with different entities of related groups often enter into contractual netting agreements that allow the setoff of obligations between entities within the groups. The effectiveness of these agreements has been called into question by a recent decision of a bankruptcy court in Delaware, which refused to allow a party to a contractual netting agreement to offset its obligations to the debtors against obligations of the debtors under the netting agreement.