Legal Update
September 27, 2013
In re Tribune: Defendants Successfully Challenge Individual
Creditors Standing But District Court Rules that Section 546(e)
Safe Harbor Does Not Bar Individual Creditors’ State Law Based
Constructive Fraudulent Conveyance Claims
On September 23, 2013, the US District Court
for the Southern District of New York in In re
Tribune1 held that the individual creditor suits at
issue were stayed because the Creditors’
Committee was in the process of prosecuting
claims for intentional fraudulent conveyance

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held on Aug. 26, 2013 that an investment manager’s “failure to keep client funds properly segregated” and subsequent pledge of those funds “to secure an overnight loan” to stay in business may have constituted: (a) a fraudulent transfer to the lender; and (b) grounds for equitably subordinating the lender’s $312 million secured claim. In re Sentinel Management Group, Inc., 2013 WL 4505152, *1 (7th Cir. Aug. 26, 2013) (“Sentinel II”).

CASE SNAPSHOT

A Western District of New York bankruptcy court has held that the safe harbor provisions of section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code apply to leveraged buy-outs of privately held securities. See Cyganowski v. Lapides (In re Batavia Nursing Home, LLC), No. 12-1145 (Bankr. W.D.N.Y. July 29, 2013).

Over the next few years, a significant number of distressed bank-holding companies will face the end of interestdeferral periods and the prospect of payment defaults on certain debt instruments and trust-preferred securities. The looming obligations to repay deferred interest may escalate the need for financial restructuring at these holding companies and may create attractive opportunities for investors to recapitalize or acquire their subsidiary banks, including in a bankruptcy scenario.

“Safe harbors” in the Bankruptcy Code designed to minimize “systemic risk”—disruption in the securities and commodities markets that could otherwise be caused by a counterparty’s bankruptcy filing—have been the focus of a considerable amount of judicial scrutiny in recent years. The latest contribution to this growing body of sometimes controversial jurisprudence was recently handed down by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

As part of the Lehman Brothers Inc. ("Lehman") bankruptcy, the Bankruptcy Court for Southern District of New York ("Court") determined that three banks’ (the "Claimants") claims in relation to repurchase agreements ("repos") were not "customer claims" entitled to customer protection under the Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970 ("SIPA").

Second Circuit’s Quebecor bankruptcy decision offers comfort to capital markets participants that certain transactions will qualify for the Section 546(e) safe harbor.

Introduction

Judge James M. Peck of the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held, on June 25, 2013 (the “Lehman Op.”),1that claims under repurchase transactions (“Repos”) do not qualify as customer claims and therefore are not entitled to the priority or coverage provided for customers’ claims under the Securities Investor Protection Act (“SIPA”).

On June 25, 2013, the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Court”) issued a memorandum decision in the Lehman Brothers SIPA proceeding¹ holding that claims asserted by certain repurchase agreement (“repo”) counterparties (the “Representative Claimants”) did not qualify for treatment as customer claims under SIPA.