UBS terminated its ISDA Master and FX transactions with Lehman Brothers Inc., was obligated to return about $23 million in collateral, wanted to set-off against that $23 million amounts owing by LBI to UBS affiliates as contemplated by the cross-affiliates set-off provision.
On July 27, 2009, Arclin Canada Ltd. and related Canadian entities filed under the CCAA in Ontario and related U.S. entities filed under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in Delaware. Arclin announced that it had reached agreement with certain of its key senior lenders to reduce its debt from US $234 million to US $60 million and that it would receive a US $25 million debtor in possession (DIP) financing facility.
In a decision last month, DCF Capital, LLC v. US Shale Solutions, LLC (Sup. Ct. NY Co. Jan. 24, 2017), a New York State Supreme Court justice held that a noteholder that had properly accelerated indenture debt may sue to collect that debt notwithstanding the operation of a standard no-action clause. This holding, while appealing from a noteholder perspective, may not be compelled by Section 316(b) of the Trust Indenture Act on which it rests and is contrary to some prior case law.
Background
Key point
This case demonstrates how reservation of legal rights can be key even if the parties are seeking a commercial solution
Facts
In UBS AG v Kommunale Wasserwerke Leipzig GmbH(1) the Court of Appeal heard an appeal relating to whether complex, loss-making financial transactions were enforceable against the respondent (KWL) in circumstances where they had been entered into against the backdrop of a corrupt relationship between the appellant counterparty (UBS) and the respondent's agent (Value Partners).
On September 6, 2012, the National Credit Union Administration Board (NCUA) sued UBS in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. The NCUA filed the suit in its capacity as Liquidating Agent of U.S.
In re Lehman Brothers Inc., Bankr. Case No. 08-01420 (JMP) (SIPA), 2011 WL 4553015 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Oct. 4, 2011)
CASE SNAPSHOT
Irving Picard's lawsuit against JPMorgan Chase & Co. styled Picard v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., 11-cv-913, in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, was dismissed on November 1, 2011. U.S.
In a client advisory sent by our office a few months ago, we described a decision in the Madoff saga in which the District Court for the Southern District of New York (the Court) closed off a potential avenue of significant recovery for the Madoff Trustee (the Trustee) and the Ponzi scheme victims by denying the Trustee standing to pursue certain claims against feeder funds – firms that sent investors’ funds to Madof
The enforcement of triangular setoffs in bankruptcy, where affiliates set off their claims against the debtor, received another setback in a recent decision in the Lehman bankruptcy cases. See In re Lehman Brothers Inc., No. 08-01420 (JMP) (SIPA), 2011 WL 4553015 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Oct.