Skip to main content
Enter a keyword
  • Login
  • Home

    Main navigation

    Menu
    • US Law
      • Chapter 15 Cases
    • Regions
      • Africa
      • Asia Pacific
      • Europe
      • North Africa/Middle East
      • North America
      • South America
    • Headlines
    • Education Resources
      • ABI Committee Articles
      • ABI Journal Articles
      • Covid 19
      • Conferences and Webinars
      • Newsletters
      • Publications
    • Events
    • Firm Articles
    • About Us
      • ABI International Board Committee
      • ABI International Member Committee Leadership
    • Join
    Fourth Circuit examines swap agreements subject to Bankruptcy Code safe harbors
    2009-06-24

    In Hutson v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.

    Filed under:
    USA, Derivatives, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft LLP, Bankruptcy, Debtor, Fraud, Natural gas, Safe harbor (law), Swap (finance), Commodity, Maturity (finance), Systemic risk, DuPont, Title 11 of the US Code, Trustee, United States bankruptcy court, Fourth Circuit
    Authors:
    Mark C. Ellenberg
    Location:
    USA
    Firm:
    Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft LLP
    Litigation challenges counterparty right to withhold payments under Section 2(a)(iii) of ISDA Master Agreement as violation of automatic stay provisions of US Bankruptcy Code
    2009-08-11

    In a recently filed motion in the United States Bankruptcy Court Southern District of New York (the “Motion”), Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (“LBHI”) is seeking to compel Metavante Corporation (“Metavante”) to perform its obligations under a swap agreement between Metavante and Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc.

    Filed under:
    USA, New York, Derivatives, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft LLP, Bankruptcy, Condition precedent, Libor, Debtor, Safe harbor (law), Interest, Swap (finance), Liquidation, Default (finance), Lehman Brothers, United States bankruptcy court
    Location:
    USA
    Firm:
    Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft LLP
    Lehman bankruptcy court holds ISDA swap counterparty in violation of automatic stay/counterparty seeks modification
    2009-09-29

    In a recent ruling from the bench, Judge James M. Peck of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held that Metavante Corporation’s suspension of payments under an outstanding swap agreement with Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc.

    Filed under:
    USA, New York, Derivatives, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft LLP, Bankruptcy, Condition precedent, Debtor, Safe harbor (law), Swap (finance), Default (finance), Systemic risk, International Swaps and Derivatives Association, Lehman Brothers, Title 11 of the US Code, United States bankruptcy court
    Authors:
    Mark C. Ellenberg
    Location:
    USA
    Firm:
    Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft LLP
    Lehman bankruptcy court rules on right to withhold payment under ISDA Master Agreement
    2009-09-29

    On September 17, 2009, the U.S.

    Filed under:
    USA, New York, Derivatives, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP, Bankruptcy, Condition precedent, Debtor, Safe harbor (law), Swap (finance), Liquidation, Default (finance), Leverage (finance), American International Group, Lehman Brothers, Title 11 of the US Code, United States bankruptcy court
    Location:
    USA
    Firm:
    Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP
    Bankruptcy court orders swap counterparty to pay Lehman Brothers despite event of default
    2009-09-25

    The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York entered an order on Sept. 17, 2009, granting a motion filed by Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc. (“LBSF”) to compel Metavante Corporation (“Metavante”) to continue to make payments to LBSF under an ISDA Master Agreement.

    Filed under:
    USA, New York, Derivatives, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP, Bankruptcy, Condition precedent, Debtor, Safe harbor (law), Interest, Swap (finance), Motion to compel, Liquidation, Default (finance), US Congress, Lehman Brothers, Title 11 of the US Code, United States bankruptcy court
    Authors:
    Lawrence V. Gelber , Craig Stein , Kristin Boggiano
    Location:
    USA
    Firm:
    Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP
    US Bankruptcy Court finds that payment conditionality is unenforceabe under Section 2 (a) (iii) of the ISDA Master Agreement
    2009-09-24

    The judge responsible for the Lehman bankruptcy proceedings in the United States has found that the provisions of the US bankruptcy code that exempt swap agreements and master netting agreements from the application of the Code's automatic stay and other relevant provisions do not permit a party to an ISDA Master Agreement to suspend performance under Section 2 (a) (iii) of the master agreement.

    Filed under:
    USA, Derivatives, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, Bankruptcy, Swap (finance), Lehman Brothers
    Location:
    USA
    Firm:
    Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer
    Recent bankruptcy court decisions affecting counterparties to open or terminated derivative contracts with Lehman Brothers entities
    2009-09-23

    On September 17, 2009 Judge Peck of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York issued two orders that may significantly impact parties who held, or still currently hold, derivative contracts with Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc. (LBSF) or any of the other debtors in the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy cases (the Debtors).

    Filed under:
    USA, Derivatives, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Squire Patton Boggs, Bankruptcy, Debtor, Swap (finance), Motion to compel, Mediation, Good faith, Default (finance), Lehman Brothers cases, Lehman Brothers, Title 11 of the US Code, United States bankruptcy court
    Location:
    USA
    Firm:
    Squire Patton Boggs
    Stern warning to swap counterparties from Lehman bankruptcy judge
    2009-10-09

    On September 15, 2009, in an order read from the bench, the Honorable James M. Peck, Bankruptcy Judge in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of NewYork, and the presiding judge in the Chapter 11 proceedings of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (“LBHI”) and other associated Lehman Brothers United States entities, held a key provision of the standard ISDA Master Agreement unenforceable in a bankruptcy context.

    Filed under:
    USA, New York, Derivatives, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Sidley Austin LLP, Bankruptcy, Swap (finance), Lehman Brothers, United States bankruptcy court
    Location:
    USA
    Firm:
    Sidley Austin LLP
    Bankruptcy court prohibits counterparty's suspension of payments to Lehman under open derivative contract
    2009-10-06

    In a significant decision recently handed down in the Lehman bankruptcy case, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held that a non-defaulting counterparty acted improperly by suspending payments under an open derivative contract with Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc. ("LBSF").

    Filed under:
    USA, Derivatives, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Venable LLP, Bankruptcy, Condition precedent, Libor, Debtor, Safe harbor (law), Interest, Swap (finance), Liquidation, Default (finance), Lehman Brothers, United States bankruptcy court
    Location:
    USA
    Firm:
    Venable LLP
    US Bankruptcy Court denies counterparty contractual right to withhold payments under Section 2(a)(iii) of the ISDA Master Agreement
    2009-10-02

    On September 15, 2009, the United States Bankruptcy Court of the Southern District of New York ordered Metavante Corporation (“Metavante”) to make payments to Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc. (“LBSF”) under a prepetition interest rate swap agreement guaranteed by Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (“LBHI” and, together with LBSF, “Lehman”) after Metavante had suspended ordinary course settlement payments under the swap.1 Metavante claimed a contractual right to withhold payment under Section 2(a)(iii) of the 1992 ISDA Master Agreement as a result of Lehman’s bankruptcy.

    Filed under:
    USA, Derivatives, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, White & Case, Bankruptcy, Condition precedent, Libor, Debtor, Safe harbor (law), Interest, Swap (finance), Concession (contract), Default (finance), Lehman Brothers, Title 11 of the US Code, United States bankruptcy court
    Authors:
    Ian Cuillerier , Abraham Zylberberg
    Location:
    USA
    Firm:
    White & Case

    Pagination

    • First page « First
    • Previous page ‹‹
    • …
    • Page 12
    • Page 13
    • Page 14
    • Page 15
    • Current page 16
    • Page 17
    • Page 18
    • Page 19
    • Page 20
    • …
    • Next page ››
    • Last page Last »
    Home

    Quick Links

    • US Law
    • Headlines
    • Firm Articles
    • Board Committee
    • Member Committee
    • Join
    • Contact Us

    Resources

    • ABI Committee Articles
    • ABI Journal Articles
    • Conferences & Webinars
    • Covid-19
    • Newsletters
    • Publications

    Regions

    • Africa
    • Asia Pacific
    • Europe
    • North Africa/Middle East
    • North America
    • South America

    © 2025 Global Insolvency, All Rights Reserved

    Joining the American Bankruptcy Institute as an international member will provide you with the following benefits at a discounted price:

    • Full access to the Global Insolvency website, containing the latest worldwide insolvency news, a variety of useful information on US Bankruptcy law including Chapter 15, thousands of articles from leading experts and conference materials.
    • The resources of the diverse community of United States bankruptcy professionals who share common business and educational goals.
    • A central resource for networking, as well as insolvency research and education (articles, newsletters, publications, ABI Journal articles, and access to recorded conference presentation and webinars).

    Join now or Try us out for 30 days