On October 4, 2011, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that a contractual right of a triangular (non-mutual) setoff was unenforceable in bankruptcy, even though the contract was safe harbored. In re Lehman Brothers, Inc., No. 08-01420 (JMP), 2011 WL 4553015 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Oct. 4, 2011).

Geltzer v. Mooney (In re MacMenamin’s Grill Ltd.), Adv. Case. No. 09-8266, Bankr. Case No. 08-23660, 2011 WL 1549056 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Apr. 21, 2011)

CASE SNAPSHOT

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently held that prematurity redemptions of commercial paper made by Enron Corp. shortly before it filed for bankruptcy were protected from avoidance by 11 U.S.C. § 546(e)’s safe harbor for securities transaction settlement payments. In re Enron Creditors Recovery Corp. v. Alfa., No. 09-5122-bk (2d Cir. June 28, 2011). In so doing, the Second Circuit resolved a clash between the Bankruptcy Code’s interest in avoiding preferential debt repayment and the securities industry’s interest in preserving transaction finality.

Following the Second Circuit’s recent precedent in an Enron appeal (also the subject of a Basis Points blog post), Judge Peck of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York concluded that the redemption of notes prior to maturity was exempt from preference actions under the safe harbor provision of Bankruptcy Code § 546(e). Official Comm. of Unsecured Creditors of Quebecor World (USA) Inc. v. Am. United Life Ins. Co., No. 08-10152 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. July 27, 2011).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently ruled that constructive fraudulent conveyance claims arising under state law are preempted by the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. (Code), where the transfers were made by or to financial intermediaries effectuating settlement payments in securities transactions or made in connection with a securities contract, irrespective of whether the plaintiff is a debtor in possession, bankruptcy trustee or other creditors’ representative.

Today, the Second Circuit reissued the latest in a line of cases adopting an expansive reading of the safe harbor under Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code. In re Tribune Co. Fraudulent Conveyance Litig., Case 13-3992, Doc. 356-1 (2d Cir. Mar. 29, 2016). (This opinion was originally issued on March 24 and withdrawn on March 28. The opinion released today contains minor, non-substantive alterations to the text on pages 8, 22, 26, and 40. In all other respects, it is identical to the opinion withdrawn last week).

How far do the Bankruptcy Code’s “safe harbor” provisions extend in the commercial mortgage-backed securitization (CMBS) market? Do these safe harbor provisions protect financial institutions that act merely as conduits for CMBS payments? These questions were addressed recently by the Northern District of Illinois District Court, and the court’s decision provides ammunition for CMBS investors in clawback claims brought by a bankruptcy trustee.

While the Bankruptcy Code’s safe harbor provision in section 546(e) previously provided comfort for brokerdealers, the Bankruptcy Court’s decision in Gredd v. Bear, Stearns Securities Corp. (In re Manhattan Investment Fund, Ltd.), 359 B.R. 510 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2007), chips away at this provision and creates new risks for those providing brokerage account services. Always at risk as a deep pocket, new duties have been thrust upon brokerdealers that go far beyond the terms of the account agreement.

Factual Background

The decision of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Hutson v. Smithfield Packing Co. (In re National Gas Distributors, LLC)1 poses potentially serious problems for parties trading gas under the North American Energy Standards Board (NAESB) base contract. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit will soon review this case of first impression about what constitutes a “swap agreement” under the expanded definition included in the U.S. Bankruptcy Code after the 2005 amendments.

January 8, 2008 A Delaware bankruptcy court decided on Friday that mortgage servicing rights could be severed from a mortgage loan repurchase agreement that fell within applicable safe harbors of the Bankruptcy Code, at least where the loans were transferred “servicing retained.” The decision isCalyon New York Branch v. American Home Mortgage Corp., et al. (In re American Home Mortgage Corp.), Bankr. Case No. 07-51704 (CSS) (Bankr. D. Del. Jan. 4, 2008).