In an interpretive statement, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission has taken the position that “cleared-only contracts,” over-the-counter contracts submitted for clearing through a futures commission merchant to a derivatives clearing organization, should be included within the definition of “net equity” for purposes of U.S. Bankruptcy Code provisions applicable to commodity brokers. The CFTC’s interpretation generally would treat cleared-only contracts in the same manner as exchange-traded futures contracts in the event of a futures commission merchant bankruptcy.

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

Yesterday, the Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (DTCC) announced that its Trade Information Warehouse (TIW) successfully completed on October 21st settlement of the over-the-counter credit default swaps (CDS) related to the credit event of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.

On November 14, 2008, a letter was sent to derivatives counterparties of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and its affiliates (collectively, “Lehman”) notifying them of Lehman’s Motion to Settle or Assign Derivative Contracts. The letter concerns a motion filed in the bankruptcy court by Lehman Brothers Debtors on November 13, 2008, which seeks to establish two procedures relating to its pre-petition derivative contracts with counterparties.

Introduction:  

The Fourth Circuit’s reversal of the bankruptcy court’s narrow reading of swap agreement clarifies the nature of agreements entitled to broad protections under the Bankruptcy Code, but until the decision is fully implemented on remand, swap participants will bear increased risk in hedging transactions.

On Feb. 11, 2009, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued its opinion in Hutson v. E.I. Dupont de Nemours and Co. (In re National Gas Distributors), attempting, in a matter of first impression, to define "commodity forward agreement" for purposes of eligibility for protection under the safe harbor provisions of the Bankruptcy Code. At first blush, this decision appears to provide the additional certainty that participants in the commodities markets require.

This alert has been prompted by a recent decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals that has a potentially huge impact on the treatment under U.S. bankruptcy law of contracts that entail a physical delivery of commodities. The decision is a positive development for those that had entered into a physically settled transaction with an entity which has subsequently become subject to a U.S. bankruptcy procedure as such transactions may qualify as a "swap agreement" and therefore fall within the "safe harbor" provisions of the U.S.

On February 11, 2009, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, addressing an apparent issue of first impression, ruled that a series of gas supply contracts might constitute “commodity forward agreements” and, in turn, “swap agreements,” exempt from the court-appointed trustee’s avoidance actions.1 The Court reversed and remanded the decision from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, which had held that the commodity supply contracts at issue were insufficiently tied to financial markets to be considered protected “commodity forwar

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently issued a decision that has the potential to have a major impact on how contracts that provide for physical delivery of commodities are treated under U.S. bankruptcy law.