In a recent ruling from the bench, Judge James M. Peck of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held that Metavante Corporation’s suspension of payments under an outstanding swap agreement with Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc.

On September 15, 2009, in an order read from the bench, the Honorable James M. Peck, Bankruptcy Judge in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of NewYork, and the presiding judge in the Chapter 11 proceedings of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (“LBHI”) and other associated Lehman Brothers United States entities, held a key provision of the standard ISDA Master Agreement unenforceable in a bankruptcy context.

In a significant decision recently handed down in the Lehman bankruptcy case, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held that a non-defaulting counterparty acted improperly by suspending payments under an open derivative contract with Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc. ("LBSF").

On September 15, 2009, the United States Bankruptcy Court of the Southern District of New York ordered Metavante Corporation (“Metavante”) to make payments to Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc. (“LBSF”) under a prepetition interest rate swap agreement guaranteed by Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (“LBHI” and, together with LBSF, “Lehman”) after Metavante had suspended ordinary course settlement payments under the swap.1 Metavante claimed a contractual right to withhold payment under Section 2(a)(iii) of the 1992 ISDA Master Agreement as a result of Lehman’s bankruptcy.

Today, the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law held a hearing to discuss the role of bankruptcy and antitrust law in financial regulatory reform, particularly with respect to institutions that may be regarded as “too big to fail,” as highlighted during the financial crisis.

Testifying before the Subcommittee were the following witnesses:

Panel I

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York has granted debtors Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.’s request to pursue a plan for developer SunCal Co., which is subject to a pending bankruptcy case in the Central District of California. Prior to LBHI’s bankruptcy filing, the debtors had provided SunCal with funding in an amount of approximately $2.2 billion. In January, SunCal commenced an adversary proceeding in its own bankruptcy case seeking to have LBHI’s claims subordinated. SunCal opposes LBHI’s filing a plan and has put forth its own plan in the case.

Yesterday, the bankrupt estate of Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. (Lehman) sued Barclays Capital, Inc.

For participants in the over-the-counter ("OTC") derivatives markets, perhaps the most significant recent US legal decision interpreting counterparty rights upon a bankruptcy event of default was the September 15, 2009 bench ruling in the US Lehman Brothers chapter 11 bankruptcy cases, In re Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc., Case No. 08-13555 et seq. (JMP)(jointly administered) ("Bankruptcy Case").

Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.’s September 15, 2008 bankruptcy was an event of default under thousands of derivatives contracts to which a Lehman entity was a party and for which Lehman Brothers Holdings was the guarantor. This default entitled the vast majority of Lehman’s counterparties to terminate these contracts, and almost all were terminated.

In a matter of first impression arising in the largest corporate bankruptcy in history, In re Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York invalidated a common contractual provision shifting payment priority upon the default of a swap counterparty (“Flip Clause”) in a credit-linked debt structure.1