In light of the recent Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing by Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and the subsequent determination of the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC) to commence a proceeding placing Lehman Brothers Inc.
September 21, 2008 Following a week of unprecedented market upheaval, players in financial contracts got some reassurance from the bankruptcy judge presiding over the liquidation of broker/dealer Lehman Brothers Inc. (“LBI”) and the sale of a portion of its assets to Barclays Capital Inc. (“BCI”).
Over the past two weeks, the federal government has relied on nearly every legal authority available to address the unfolding crisis in financial institutions with large mortgage-related holdings — direct and indirect financial assistance, government takeovers and even a decision to let the bankruptcy process run its course have all come into play. Today, several new actions have been announced, together with proposals that would require Congressional action.
Debtors operating under Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection routinely sell some or all of their assets during the course of their bankruptcy case. As part of a bankruptcy court approved sale process, debtors often request that the court exempt such transfers from stamp taxes1 pursuant to Bankruptcy Code § 1146(a). The exemption generally reduces obligations encumbering a debtor’s property and allows for a greater portion of sale proceeds to be available for distribution to creditors.
On September 15, 2008, Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (“LBHI”) filed for protection under chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code in New York. The case bears the caption In re Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., Case No. 08-13555, and has been assigned to Judge James M. Peck. Notably, the only Lehman entity thus far to file for chapter 11 protection is LBHI; neither the main “broker dealer” (Lehman Brothers, Inc.) nor other subsidiaries of Lehman filed for U.S. bankruptcy protection. However, Lehman Brothers Japan Inc. and Lehman Brothers Holdings Japan Inc.
In Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. Moran Towing Corp. (In re Bethlehem Steel Corp.),1 the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held that preferential transfer claims were not arbitrable. The Court reasoned that because the avoidance powers did not belong to the debtor, but rather were creditor claims that could only be brought by a trustee or debtor-in-possession, they were not subject to the arbitration clauses in contracts to which the creditors were not parties.
The Dispute and the Arbitration Clauses
As you are undoubtedly aware, the September 15 Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing in New York by Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. (LBHI) represents the single largest insolvency proceeding in US history. With assets and liabilities of more than US$639 billion, the LBHI filing dwarfs the previously largest US bankruptcies. The filing comes at a time of significant destabilization in US capital markets and has global ramifications. In an effort to keep our clients abreast of the LBHI situation, we are providing the following general update of significant events in the proceedings:
C.A. No. 3972-CC (Del. Ch. Oct. 14, 2008) (C. Chandler).
Creditors often consider filing an involuntary bankruptcy petition against their financially distressed debtors. Before using this extraordinary remedy, a creditor should evaluate whether it will achieve a valid business objective. Additionally, each creditor should evaluate whether there is a valid basis to support the filing. When the debtor's bankruptcy is appropriate, it can be a valuable step in maximizing a creditor's recovery. But the stakes are high.
On November 13, 2008, Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and its affiliated debtors in Chapter 11 (collectively, “Lehman”) filed a motion (the “Motion”) seeking Bankruptcy Court approval of procedures (the “Procedures”) for the assumption and assignment of derivative contracts not yet terminated by its various counterparties, as well confirmation of Lehman’s right to enter into settlement agreements for the termination of derivative contracts that have been terminated by its counterparties post-petition.