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.

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").

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.

The Bankruptcy Abuse and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (BAPCPA) purported to eliminate the ability of chapter 11 debtors in possession to pay bonuses to management through Key Employee Retention Plans. However, in recognition of the fact that a real need often exists to incentivize key employees to remain with a reorganizing or liquidating business, bankruptcy courts have approved incentive plans providing for payments to insiders and other employees. Such plans must be carefully crafted to avoid the restrictions on retention bonuses post-BAPCPA.

Introduction

The dearth of credit available for companies in financial distress means an asset sale may be the only way to save the business and jobs. It also presents unusually attractive investment opportunities for public and private companies, private equity and hedge funds, and other investors with capital and an ability to move expeditiously.

Part One of this article, published in the last edition of the Restructuring Review, examined recent developments in the gaming industry, focusing on strategies employed by gaming companies to increase liquidity and avoid insolvency. Part Two focuses on how potential buyers can use the bankruptcy process to purchase gaming facilities, free and clear of prior liens, and describes certain complications inherent in the acquisition of this type of asset.

Acquiring Gaming Facilities through Chapter 11

Sale Process

On Thursday, August 6, 2009, the United States Senate confirmed Justice Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court of the United States. As a former Judge on the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Judge Sotomayor’s jurisprudence includes a number of decisions involving noteworthy bankruptcy cases. This article provides a brief survey of these decisions.

In an area of the law that continues to be active, the federal bankruptcy court in Delaware has once again issued a detailed ruling on the actions of directors and officers leading up to a company's insolvency. Among the notable conclusions are: (1) failure to conduct due diligence before obtaining a loan may support a claim for breach of duty of care; and (2) there is no cause of action for "improvident lending" in Delaware or New Jersey. Official Comm. of Unsecured Creditors of Fedders N. Am., Inc. v. Goldman Sachs Credit Partners L.P. (In re Fedders N. Am., Inc.), 405 B.R.

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York recently prohibited insurers from terminating debtors' insurance contracts based on so-called "cesser" clauses, which provided for the automatic termination of insurance coverage upon the commencement of proceedings under any bankruptcy or insolvency law. LaMonica v. N. of Eng. Protecting & Indem. Ass'n Ltd. (In re Probulk Inc.), 407 B.R. 56 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2009).

The U.S. Supreme Court has issued a long-awaited decision that many practitioners had hoped would provide insight into the permissible breadth of third-party releases and injunctions often contained in confirmed chapter 11 plans. The high court, however, narrowly resolved the issue presented in Travelers Indem. Co. v. Bailey, 129 S.Ct. 2195 (2009), and left open that ultimate question.