TCEH Bankruptcy: SDNY Transfers Delaware Trust Company v. Wilmington Trust N.A. Intercreditor Dispute to Delaware Bankruptcy Court, Reaffirming Broad View of Bankruptcy Jurisdiction
by | posted in: Bankruptcy Administration and Jurisdiction | 0

By Mark Ellenberg, Howard Hawkins, Ivan Loncar, Ellen Halstead, Michele Maman and Tom Curtin of Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft LLP

In Delaware Trust Company v. Wilmington Trust N.A. the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York found that a complaint based on an intercreditor agreement among secured creditors of Texas Competitive Electric Holdings LLC constituted a core proceeding.  Accordingly, the court denied a motion to remand the case to New York state court, where it had originally been filed, and also transferred the case to the US District Court for the District of Delaware.  The case was subsequently referred to the bankruptcy court presiding over the TCEH bankruptcy cases.  Plaintiff had alleged that the dispute, which involved allocation of adequate protection payments ordered by the Delaware Bankruptcy Court, was an intercreditor dispute that turned solely on the interpretation of a prepetition intercreditor agreement and, accordingly, should be decided in state court.  As such, the issue before the District Court was whether a New York court or the Delaware Bankruptcy Court should resolve the intercreditor dispute.

The District Court ruled that the dispute was core because the dispute would have no meaningful existence but for TCEH’s bankruptcy filing, as the ability to receive adequate protection derives solely from the Bankruptcy Code.  In addition, the Court found that the dispute was core because the intercreditor issue would likely arise again in the context of plan confirmation.   The decision is important because it reaffirms the often-challenged principle that contractual disputes solely among creditors may nonetheless qualify as “core” proceedings where, as here, the underlying dispute could only arise in the context of a bankruptcy proceeding.

For our full memo, please click here.

U.S. District Court Holds that Puerto Rico’s Recovery Act is Unconstitutional
by | posted in: Municipal Bankruptcy | 0

By Mark Ellenberg, Howard Hawkins, Lary Stromfeld, Ivan Loncar, and Thomas Curtin of Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft LLP

On February 6, 2015, in Franklin California Tax-Free Trust v. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico held that the Puerto Rico Public Corporation Debt Enforcement and Recovery Act (the “Recovery Act”) is expressly preempted by section 903 of the Bankruptcy Code. Section 903 of the Bankruptcy Code expressly prohibits all states, including Puerto Rico, from enacting laws that prescribe a “method of composition” that discharges debts. The Recovery Act, which was loosely based on chapter 9 of the Bankruptcy Code, would have permitted Puerto Rico’s power authority (PREPA), highway authority (HTA) and water authority (PRASA) to adjust their debts without the consent of all creditors. The court concluded that this scheme ran afoul of section 903, even though municipal entities in Puerto Rico are expressly excluded from the coverage of Chapter 9. The decision is among the first to explicitly hold that section 903 expressly preempts the states, including Puerto Rico, from enacting any debt adjustment scheme that results in the discharge of indebtedness, even if the affected entities have no remedy under the Bankruptcy Code. The court also denied the Commonwealth’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims under the Contracts Clause and certain of the plaintiffs’ claims under the Takings Clause.

To read further, click here.

Practitioners, Academics, and a Judge Testify about Safe Harbors before Congress
by | posted in: Financial Firms and Safe Harbors | 0

Author: Stephen D. Adams

The House Judiciary Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial, and Antitrust Law has held two sets of hearings in recent months on the bankruptcy safe harbors for repos and derivatives from the automatic stay, from preference and fraudulent conveyance law, and from the limitations on ipso facto clauses.

This past Wednesday, March 26, Judge Christopher Sontchi, Seth Grosshandler, Jane Vris, Thomas Jackson, and Michelle Harner testified. Last December, Jeffrey Lacker, Donald Bernstein, and Mark Roe testified.

Judge Sontchi argued that the 546(e)’s exception for all settlement transactions is too broad and also urged Congress to narrow the safe harbors for repos. Seth Grosshandler, of Cleary Gottlieb, reported on the work of the ABI safe harbors advisory committee (which includes both Judge Sontchi and Prof. Roe) and warned that the safe harbors are complex and potentially costly to alter.  Jane Vris, representing the National Bankruptcy Conference (NBC), and Thomas Jackson, professor at the University of Rochester, testified on bankruptcy of SIFIs as an alternative to Dodd Frank resolution of bail-out.  Michelle Harner, professor at University of Maryland School of Law, testified in her role as the Reporter to the ABI Commission on Bankruptcy Reform about the Commission.

Mark Roe, professor at Harvard Law School, testified that the safe harbors facilitate excessive short-term funding of financial institutions and impede effective resolution of large financial failures, like that of Lehman in 2008.  Donald Bernstein, of Davis Polk, a member of the ABI bankruptcy commission, testified about the bankruptcy adjustments needed to adapt bankruptcy law to the FDIC’s Single Point of Entry resolution mechanisms.  Jeffrey Lacker, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, testified about the importance of bankruptcy reform to reduce the problem of too-big-to-fail and reduce reliance on short-term debt.

The written testimonies are linked above, and the video of the oral testimonies for the March 26th hearing will be found here once it has been posted, and is here for the December 3rd hearing.

For more on the bankruptcy safe harbors for derivatives and repurchase agreements, please see the post by Steven L. Schwarcz and Ori Sharon summarizing their recent paper, The Bankruptcy-Law Safe Harbor for Derivatives: A Path-Dependence Analysis, and the post by Kathryn Borgeson, Mark Ellenberg, Lary Stromfeld, and John Thompson, entitled Lehman Bankruptcy Court Issues Safe Harbor Decision, summarizing a recent Lehman case decision on the safe harbors, both published Tuesday.

Lehman Bankruptcy Court Issues Safe Harbor Decision
by | posted in: Financial Firms and Safe Harbors | 0

Authors: Kathryn Borgeson, Mark Ellenberg, Lary Stromfeld, John Thompson

On December 19, 2013, Judge James M. Peck of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York issued his latest decision in the Lehman Brothers cases addressing the scope of the safe harbor provisions of the Bankruptcy Code.  Michigan State Housing Development Authority v. Lehman Brothers Derivatives Products Inc. and Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (In re Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.).  Judge Peck’s decision confirms that the contractual provisions specifying the method of calculating the settlement amount under a swap agreement are protected by the Bankruptcy Code’s safe harbors.  The decision follows the reasoning of the amicus brief filed by the International Swaps and Derivatives Association (“ISDA”), which was prepared by Cadwalader.  For a full discussion of the case and argument, please continue reading here.