Congress enacted amendments to the United States Bankruptcy Code in 2005 designed to increase certainty in the marketplace for mortgage loan repurchase agreements and other financial contracts.1 The contours – and limits – of these amendments were recently explored by the Delaware bankruptcy court in Calyon New York Branch v. American Home Mortgage Corp.

In a May 23, 2008 decision, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware ruled that BBB-rated mortgage-backed notes are eligible for the Bankruptcy Code's repurchase agreement safe harbor as “interests in mortgage loans”. The court also held that a repurchase agreement constituted a sale, as opposed to a financing governed by UCC Article 9 -- the first decision on this topic since the financial contract safe harbors were expanded under the 2005 amendments to the Bankruptcy Code.

Courts faced with the task of unraveling the results of the recent credit crisis are being called upon to scrutinize lending agreements—many of which are complex and often previously uninterpreted. The review of these agreements is a reminder to signatory parties of the importance of fully understanding their obligations upfront.

A federal bankruptcy court in Florida has addressed an issue of first impression in its district regarding the degree of error necessary to render a financing statement “seriously misleading” under UCC 9-506.

Previously, we have discussed the risks involved in failing to name the debtor correctly on a financing statement. See CRaB Alert, February 2007, p. 14, “Calling Borrower ‘Mike’ Leads To Failure To Perfect.”

On May 23, 2008, in American Home Mortgage Investment Corp. v. Lehman Bros. Inc.(In re American Home Mortgage Corp.),1 the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware ruled that BBB-rated mortgagebacked notes are eligible for the Bankruptcy Code’s repurchase agreement safe harbor as “interests in mortgage loans”.

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

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware inElway Company, LLP v. Miller (In re Elrod Holdings Corp.), 2008 WL 4414315 (Bankr. D. Del. Sept. 30, 2008) recently held that transfers in payment of a private stock sale to insiders constituted “settlement payments” under section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code and were therefore immune from avoidance as constructively fraudulent transfers by the chapter 7 trustee.

While the current outlook may be grim for the economy at large, the prospects of individual companies vary significantly, and some companies will continue to perform well despite the larger trends. For example, the designer retailer’s loss may become Walmart’s gain as consumers shop more closely for bargains. As the car manufacturers frequently say, “your mileage may vary.”

Setoff is a doctrine based as much on practical considerations as on equitable ones.

On Feb. 11, 2009, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued its opinion in Hutson v. E.I. Dupont de Nemours and Co. (In re National Gas Distributors), attempting, in a matter of first impression, to define "commodity forward agreement" for purposes of eligibility for protection under the safe harbor provisions of the Bankruptcy Code. At first blush, this decision appears to provide the additional certainty that participants in the commodities markets require.