Appellate courts continue to agree on the vitality and breadth of the safe harbor defense contained in Bankruptcy Code ("Code") § 546(e) (insulating from the trustee's fraudulent transfer or preference attack "settlement payment" or "margin payment" on a "securities contract," "commodity contract" or "forward contract" except when the debtor's payment is made with "actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud" creditors). In re Quebecor World (USA) Inc., 2013 WL2460726, *1 (2d Cir.
Few courts have construed the meaning of “repurchase agreement” as used in the Bankruptcy Code, so the recent HomeBanc1 case out of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware is a must-read for “repo” counterparties. The principal issue in HomeBanc was whether several zero purchase price repo transactions under the parties’ contract for the sale and repurchase of mortgage-backed securities fell within the definition of a “repurchase agreement” in Section 101(47) of the Bankruptcy Code.
FCStone, a New York-based commodities brokerage firm, was recently ordered to return a transfer of $15.6 million to the bankruptcy estate of Sentinel Management Group. Approximately $1.1 million of this amount constituted a prepetition transfer of proceeds the debtor obtained from the sale of securities, which proceeds the debtor distributed to a certain segment of its customers, including FCStone.
In re Homebanc Mortgage Corp.,No. 07-51740-KJC, 2013 WL 211180 (Bankr. D. Del. Jan. 18, 2013)
CASE SNAPSHOT
The Bankruptcy Court found that individual repurchase transactions having a purchase price of zero may fall within the definition of "repurchase agreement" under section 101(47) of the Bankruptcy Code provided that the master agreement governing such transactions acknowledges that each transaction constitutes consideration for every other transaction under the master agreement.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On January 4, 2013, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois issued an opinion that strikes a significant blow against the rights of futures customers that might otherwise enjoy the Bankruptcy Code’s safe harbor protections. The opinion, arising out of the Chapter 11 bankruptcy case of Sentinel Management Group, Inc. (Sentinel), fashions a new exception to the safe harbor protections in the event of distributions or redemptions to customers of a failed futures commission merchant (FCM).
CASE SNAPSHOT
On November 7, 2012, Judge Lewis A. Kaplan for the United States District Court of the Southern District of New York held that payments made in connection with a leveraged buyout to holders of privately held securities were safe harbored under section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code notwithstanding the fact that the payments passed directly from the purchaser to the seller without the use of any financial intermediary. AP Services LLP v. Silva, et al., Case No. 11-03005 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 7, 2012).
In re Qimonda Richmond, LLC, 467 B.R. 318 (Bankr. D. Del. 2012)
CASE SNAPSHOT
A settlement has been announced in the Tronox Securities Litigation,[1] making it one of the first cases where the failure to publicly disclose environmental liabilities has resulted in a substantial settlement.
The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York has lifted the automatic stay in bankruptcy to permit D&O and E&O insurers to advance or reimburse insured directors,’ officers’ and employees’ reasonable defense costs incurred in underlying litigation arising out of the insured company’s collapse. In re MF Global Holdings Ltd., et al., No. 11-15059 (MG) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Apr. 10, 2012)