ARTICLE
27 April 2012

Lehman Bankruptcy Court Holds That Pre-Petition Collateral Transfers And Guaranties to Clearing Bank are Safe Harbored

MB
Mayer Brown

Contributor

Mayer Brown is a distinctively global law firm, uniquely positioned to advise the world’s leading companies and financial institutions on their most complex deals and disputes. We have deep experience in high-stakes litigation and complex transactions across industry sectors, including our signature strength, the global financial services industry.
On April 19, 2012, the Lehman bankruptcy court handed down its decision on the long-pending motion to dismiss filed by JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., in response to Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.’s $8.6 billion avoidance action against it.
United States Finance and Banking
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

Originally published April 26, 2012

Keywords: Lehman, bankruptcy court, collateral transfers, guaranties, clearing bank, bankruptcy code

On April 19, 2012, the Lehman bankruptcy court handed down its decision on the long-pending motion to dismiss filed by JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., in response to Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.'s $8.6 billion avoidance action against it. The action sought to recover the value of collateral taken by JP Morgan in its role as principal clearing bank to Lehman in the run-up to the Lehman insolvency.

JP Morgan asserted that much of the collateral was taken in connection with transactions that were safe-harbored under the Bankruptcy Code—principally securities contracts—and therefore was protected from avoidance under section 546(e) of the Code and parallel provisions applicable to other safe-harbored agreements. The bankruptcy court's decision, on the one hand, offers a broad and supportive reading of the Code's safe-harbor from avoidance, but, on the other hand, (i) limits the meaning of the word "transfer" in section 546(e) in a manner that could be more significant on other facts and (ii) endorses a generous standard of pleading "actual intent" to defraud that may allow an easy means of skirting the safe-harbor.

On the pro-safe-harbor side, the court held:

  • The definition of "securities contract" is "very broad in its application and encompasses virtually any contract for the purchase or sale of securities, any extension of credit for the clearance or settlement of securities transactions and a wide array of related security agreements and guarantee agreements."
  • No specific language is required to connect related agreements for purposes of the safe harbor "in connection with" wording.
  • The "in connection with" language of section 546(e) permits collateral to be taken and applied against future exposure not yet existing at the time the collateral was taken.
  • Although the court held that the safe harbors protect transfers and not the incurrence of obligations, the "notional ability to assert that an obligation is not exempt from avoidance is not an acceptable means to ... undermine ... the safe harbors." Thus, even if a guarantee may be avoided, transfers of security interests and collateral in connection with that guarantee are safe harbored, so long as the guarantee was in connection with securities contracts. (Note that this reading of "transfer" as distinguishable from incurrence would leave an unsecured guarantee wholly voidable.)

On the anti-safe harbor side, the bankruptcy court allowed a very liberal interpretation of what constitutes sufficient pleading of "badges of fraud" to maintain allegations of actual fraud by JP Morgan that could allow avoidance. The court's conclusion that the usual strict pleading standard applicable to allegations of fraud "may be relaxed" in this "exceptional and distinguishable" case is striking, given the ability of such pleading to side-track expeditious treatment of safe-harbor cases. This aspect of the decision is in stark contrast to the court's earlier endorsement of the proposition that prompt disposition of safe harbor cases is essential to the effectiveness of the safe harbors.

Learn more about our Derivatives & Structured Products, Global Financial Markets Initiative and Restructuring, Bankruptcy & Insolvency practices.

Visit us at mayerbrown.com

Mayer Brown is a global legal services provider comprising legal practices that are separate entities (the "Mayer Brown Practices"). The Mayer Brown Practices are: Mayer Brown LLP and Mayer Brown Europe – Brussels LLP, both limited liability partnerships established in Illinois USA; Mayer Brown International LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated in England and Wales (authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and registered in England and Wales number OC 303359); Mayer Brown, a SELAS established in France; Mayer Brown JSM, a Hong Kong partnership and its associated entities in Asia; and Tauil & Chequer Advogados, a Brazilian law partnership with which Mayer Brown is associated. "Mayer Brown" and the Mayer Brown logo are the trademarks of the Mayer Brown Practices in their respective jurisdictions.

© Copyright 2012. The Mayer Brown Practices. All rights reserved.

This Mayer Brown article provides information and comments on legal issues and developments of interest. The foregoing is not a comprehensive treatment of the subject matter covered and is not intended to provide legal advice. Readers should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to the matters discussed herein.

See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More