Court holds that distributions made pursuant to priority payment provisions contained in CDO transactions are protected by Section 560 of the Bankruptcy Code

Summary

On 24 July 2013, the Supreme Court handed down its long-awaited judgment in the Nortel/Lehman case: Re Nortel Companies [2013] UKSC 52. The Court looked at the position where a contribution notice (CN) or financial support direction (FSD) was issued by the Pensions Regulator (TPR) on a company that is already in insolvency proceedings in England (eg administration). How does the relevant obligation rank in the order of priority of payment?

The Court of Appeal handed down its decision on 6 November 2009 upholding the High Court decision that a scheme of arrangement is not an appropriate mechanism by which the administrators of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (LBIE) can return assets to LBIE’s clients.

The judge responsible for the Lehman bankruptcy proceedings in the United States has found that the provisions of the US bankruptcy code that exempt swap agreements and master netting agreements from the application of the Code's automatic stay and other relevant provisions do not permit a party to an ISDA Master Agreement to suspend performance under Section 2 (a) (iii) of the master agreement.

The High Court in London has decided that a scheme of arrangement under the UK Companies Act 2006 cannot be used by the administration of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (LBIE) to facilitate the return of client assets to LBIE clients.

The SFC has applied to the High Court for an order directing Lehman Brothers Asia Ltd to comply with a SFC notice to produce certain records in connection with its investigation of the offer and marketing of Minibonds. The SFC notice required Lehman Brothers to produce to the SFC all documents relating to the assessment of Minibonds by an internal Lehman Brothers committee. Lawyers for Lehman Brothers objected to the production of certain documents on the ground that such documents were the subject of a claim of legal professional privilege.

Summary

This briefing summarizes the recent U.S. Bankruptcy Court order establishing bar dates for creditors filing claims in relation to debts owed to them by Lehman Brothers entities in Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings. Specifically, this briefing discusses who must file a proof of claim, how to file the proof of claim, and the special requirements for claims in respect of derivative contracts, guarantees and Lehman program securities.

On May 5, 2009, Judge James Peck, the Bankruptcy Judge in the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy cases, held that the safe harbor provisions of the Bankruptcy Code do not override the mutuality requirements for setoff under section 553(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. As a consequence, the Bankruptcy Court prohibited Swedbank, a non-debtor counter party to a swap agreement, from setting off pre-petition claims against Lehman against funds collected for Lehman’s account postpetition. See In re Lehman Bros. Holdings Inc., Bankr. Case No. 08-13555 (JMP) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.

On January 25, 2010, Judge James M. Peck of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that provisions in a CDO indenture subordinating payments due to Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc., as swap provider, constituted unenforceable ipso facto clauses under the facts and circumstances of this case. The Court also held that, because the payment priority provisions were not contained in the four corners of a swap agreement, the Bankruptcy Code’s safe harbor protections, which generally permit the operation of ipso facto clauses, did not apply.

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.