An unexpected controversy has arisen recently in the high-yield bond market, one involving limiting the available remedies following default in the wake of last year’s decision by the Southern District of New York in Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB v.

A recent decision by an appeals court of the State of New York highlights the deceptive complexity of bringing non-contractual claims by or on behalf of noteholders under the seemingly boilerplate remedies provisions in trust indentures. At issue was the standard indenture language that defines the authority of a trustee to bring claims under the indenture, and in particular whether the trustee has the power to bring non-contractual claims under its own volition (not directed by a majority in principal amount of bondholders) against persons not party to the indenture.

A lender cannot rely on its subjective intent in claiming that an otherwise properly filed UCC termination is ineffective, according to a recent decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Put another way, if a lender authorizes a termination statement, the termination is valid upon filing such UCC-3 even if the authorization was mistakenly given. While this result is not surprising, it does put lenders (and their counsel) on notice to be diligent in reviewing and authorizing the filing of UCC termination statements.

The Bottom Line:

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

In the latest decision arising out of long-running disputes over confirmation of the Tribune Company’s Chapter 11 plan, the Third Circuit issued important new guidance concerning the enforceability of subordination agreements in cramdown plans, holding (1) that subordination agreements “need not be strictly enforced” in such plans, and (2) that the relevant comparison, for determining unfair discrimination, need not always be a comparison between the recovery of the preferred class and the dissenting class, but may sometimes entail a comparison between the dissenting class’s desired and act

In its recent decision in Rodriguez v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., No. 18–1269 (Sup. Ct. Feb. 25, 2020), the Supreme Court held that federal courts may not apply the federal common law “Bob Richards Rule” to determine who owns a tax refund when a parent holding company files a tax return but a subsidiary generated the losses giving rise to the refund. Instead, the court should look to applicable state law.

General Legal Background

The Bottom Line

The Bottom Line