On May 5th, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York issued a decision declaring that a party's right to setoff in an International Swaps and Derivatives Association, Inc. ("ISDA") Master Agreement is unenforceable in bankruptcy unless "strict mutuality" exists.

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York recently issued an opinion in the case of In re Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. that significantly restricts the scope of setoff rights for energy traders and other participants in derivatives and forward commodity markets. Traditionally, bankruptcy law has required mutuality between the debtor and a creditor as a prerequisite for the exercise of setoff rights by the creditor.

On May 5, the judge overseeing the bankruptcy case of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc issued an opinion refusing Swedbank AB's request to keep several million dollars in post-bankruptcy Lehman deposits as a setoff against pre-bankruptcy swap termination claims.

The United States District Court for the District of Delaware recently affirmed a Bankruptcy Court decision that invalidated the use by creditors of so-called “triangular”, or non-mutual, setoffs in which obligations are offset among not only the parties to a bilateral contract but also their affiliates. In re SemCrude, L.P., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42477 (D. Del.

The FDIC voted to extend the safe harbor provided under 12 C.F.R. § 360.6 until September 30, 2010, from the FDIC’s ability, as conservator or receiver, to recover assets securitized or participated out by an insured depository institution. When the safe harbor was initially adopted in 2000, the FDIC provided important protections for securitizations and participations by confirming that, in the event of a bank failure, the FDIC would not try to reclaim loans transferred into such transactions so long as an accounting sale had occurred.

In re EDM Corporation, 2010 WL 1929772 (8th Cir BAP May 14, 2010)

CASE SNAPSHOT

T he recent surge in activity in the claims trading market in the wake of Lehman Brothers and other high-profile bankruptcies has created a backlog of open trades and heightened price volatility. This is a perilous combination. The lack of standardized trading documentation and uniform trading conventions, as well as the dramatic influx of new counterparties into the claims market, are factors that have contributed to longer settlement timeframes and increased uncertainty in the market.

Recently, the United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Eighth Circuit decided In re EDM Corp.,[1] affirming that a creditor’s priority in collateral may be sacrificed if the debtor’s exact legal name is not exclusively used in the financing statement.

Burtch v. Detroit Forming, Inc. (In re Archway Cookies), 435 B.R. 234 (Bankr. D. Del. 2010)

CASE SNAPSHOT