Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc. v. BNY Corporate Trustee Service Limited

2010 WL 10078354 (2010)

From our private database of 47,000+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc. v. BNY Corporate Trustee Service Limited

United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
2010 WL 10078354 (2010)

  • Written by Brett Stavin, JD

Facts

Perpetual Trustee Company Limited (Perpetual), an Australian company, held two series of credit-linked synthetic portfolio notes. The collateral securing the notes included credit-default swaps entered into between Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc. (LBSF) (plaintiff) and a special-purpose vehicle named Saphir Finance Public Limited Co. (Saphir). BNY Corporate Trustee Services Limited (BNY) (defendant) held the swaps in trust for Saphir’s creditors. These creditors included both LBSF, as the swap counterparty, and Perpetual, as the noteholder. LBSF’s parent company, Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., served as guarantor of LBSF’s swap payment obligations. Under the terms of the swap, LBSF would normally have priority interest in the swap payments over Perpetual, an arrangement known as swap-counterparty priority. However, the transaction documents also provided that in the event of a default, priority would flip to noteholder priority, which would favor Perpetual and thereby subordinate LBSF. The transaction documents provided that default events would include the filing of bankruptcy by any party to the transaction, including LBSF or its parent, Lehman Brothers Holdings. Subsequently, on September 18, 2008, Lehman Brothers Holdings filed for bankruptcy, and soon after, on October 2, LBSF also filed for bankruptcy. Following the filing of these bankruptcy petitions, Saphir exercised its right to terminate the swaps. LBSF initiated an adversary proceeding against BNY, seeking a declaratory judgment that the contractual provision that purported to authorize a flip from swap-counterparty priority to noteholder priority constituted an unenforceable ipso facto clause in violation of the Bankruptcy Code. The bankruptcy court granted summary judgment in favor of LBSF, holding that the contractual provision was an unenforceable ipso facto clause under the Bankruptcy Code and that the Bankruptcy Code’s carveout for swap agreements did not apply. BNY filed for leave with the federal district court to appeal the bankruptcy court’s ruling.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (McMahon, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 899,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 47,000 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership