There have been a number of stories about how Ambac filed for Chapter 11 on November 8. However, there’s Ambac and then there’s Ambac and then there’s Ambac. If that all sounds the same to you, we are actually referring to three different Ambacs and the purpose of this blog is to help clear up the market confusion. First there is the Ambac that filed for Chapter 11 on November 8, which is Ambac Financial Group Inc. (AFG). This must mean that the bankruptcy trigger events in the contracts of all of Ambac’s insured counterparties were triggered by the bankruptcy filing, right?
On November 10th, the International Swaps and Derivatives Association announced that its Americas Credit Derivatives Determinations Committee resolved that a bankruptcy credit event has occurred in respect of Ambac Financial Group, Inc. An auction will be held for Ambac Financial Group for which ISDA will publish the auction terms. ISDA Press Release.
The treatment of derivatives, or “qualified financial contracts”, under state insurance insolvency laws has received increased attention since the financial crisis. Four states passed laws in 2010 that allow for the exercise of certain netting collateral and termination provisions in an insurance insolvency without regard to the automatic stay mechanism and similar laws are anticipated in other states in 2011. Federal laws provide a level of certainty with respect to the treatment of certain swap agreement provisions in a general corporate bankruptcy. The U.S.
On November 17th, Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc. ("LBSF") and its official unsecured creditors' committee filed a joint motion to stay BNY Corporate Trustee Services Limited's ("BNY") appeal for 90 days in the "Dante" matter, pending final settlement of the dispute between LBSF and Perpetual Trustee Company Limited ("Perpetual").
Cooper v Centar Investments LTD, et al. (In re Trigem America Corporation), 431 B.R. 855 (C.D. Cal. 2010)
CASE SNAPSHOT
We are seeing more and more challenges by borrowers to swaps. No big surprise since, with falling interest rates over the past few years, the borrowers are on the wrong end of the transactions. Although swaps are considered independent of the loans, they are often secured by the same collateral and are usually crossdefaulted with the loans, so the obligations that arise from early termination (which can be significant) become part of the collection process and are being fought vigorously by borrowers.
On December 3rd, the CFTC published for public comment proposed requirements for swap dealers and major swap participants with respect to the treatment of collateral posted by their counterparties to margin, guarantee, or secure uncleared swaps. The proposal also would ensure that, for purposes of subchapter IV of chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code, securities held in a portfolio margining account that is a futures account constitute "customer property" and owners of such account constitute "customers." Comments should be submitted on or before February 1, 2011.
On February 8th, the CFTC published for comment proposed regulations that would set forth parameters for the inclusion of an orderly liquidation termination provision in the swap trading relationship documentation for swap dealers and major swap participants. Comments should be submitted on or before April 11, 2011. 76 FR 6708.
A recent opinion by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York affirms a 2010 ruling by the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy court, which rendered certain netting and setoff provisions unenforceable in bankruptcy. The core holding – that a counterparty cannot offset pre-petition and post-petition amounts – should come as no surprise to market participants.
Bank of America N.A. v. Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc. 439 B.R. 811 (2010) (U.S. Bankr. Ct., S.D.N.Y.)