THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Contents Display    

Section 907(b) amends the Bankruptcy Code definitions of ``financial institution'' and ``forward contract merchant.'' It is substantively identical to section 907(b) of the House bill and the Senate amendment. The

[Page: H5779]  GPO's PDF

   Subsection (b) also adds a new definition of ``financial participant'' to limit the potential impact of insolvencies upon other major market participants. This definition will allow such market participants to close-out and net agreements with insolvent entities under sections 362(b)(6), 555, and 556 even if the creditor could not qualify as, for example, a commodity broker. Sections 362(b)(6), 555 and 556 preserve the limitations of the right to close-out and net such contracts, in most cases, to entities who qualify under the Bankruptcy Code's counterparty limitations. However, where the counterparty has transactions with a total gross dollar value of at least $1 billion in notional or actual principal amount outstanding on any day during the previous 15-month period, or has gross mark-to-market positions of at least $100 million (aggregated across counterparties) in one or more agreements or transactions on any day during the previous 15-month period, sections 362(b)(6), 555 and 556 and corresponding amendments would permit it to exercise netting and related rights irrespective of its inability otherwise to satisfy those counterparty limitations. This change will help prevent systemic impact upon the markets from a single failure, and is derived from threshold tests contained in Regulation EE promulgated by the Federal Reserve Board in implementing the netting provisions of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act. It is intended that the 15-month period be measured with reference to the 15 months preceding the filing of a petition by or against the debtor.

   ``Financial participant'' is also defined to include ``clearing organizations'' within the meaning of FDICIA (as amended by the CFMA and Section 906 of the Act). This amendment, together with the inclusion of ``financial participants'' as eligible counterparties in connection with ``commodity contracts,'' ``forward contracts'' and ``securities contracts'' and the amendments made in other Sections of the Act to include ``financial participants'' as counterparties eligible for the protections in respect of ``swap agreements'' and ``repurchase agreements'', take into account the CFMA and will allow clearing organizations to benefit from the protections of all of the provisions of the Bankruptcy Code relating to these contracts and agreements. This will further the goal of promoting the clearing of derivatives and other transactions as a way to reduce systemic risk. The definition of ``financial participant'' (as with the other provisions of the Bankruptcy Code relating to ``securities contracts,'' ``forward contracts,'' ``commodity contracts,'' ``repurchase agreements'' and ``swap agreements'') is not mutually exclusive, i.e., an entity that qualifies as a ``financial participant'' could also be a ``swap participant,'' ``repo participant,'' ``forward contract merchant,'' ``commodity broker,'' ``stockbroker,'' ``securities clearing agency'' and/or ``financial institution.''

   Section 907(c) of the conference report adds to the Bankruptcy Code new definitions for the terms ``master netting agreement'' and ``master netting agreement participant.'' The definition of ``master netting agreement'' is designed to protect the termination and close-out netting provisions of cross-product master agreements between parties. Such an agreement may be used (i) to document a wide variety of securities contracts, commodity contracts, forward contracts, repurchase agreements and swap agreements or (ii) as an umbrella agreement for separate master agreements between the same parties, each of which is used to document a discrete type of transaction. The definition includes security agreements or arrangements or other credit enhancements related to one or more such agreements and clarifies that a master netting agreement will be treated as such even if it documents transactions that are not within the enumerated categories of qualifying transactions (but the provisions of the Bankruptcy Code relating to master netting agreements and the other categories of transactions will not apply to such other transactions). A ``master netting agreement participant'' is any entity that is a party to an outstanding master netting agreement with a debtor before the filing of a bankruptcy petition. Section 907(c) is substantively identical to section 907(c) of the House bill and the Senate amendment.

   Subsection (d) amends section 362(b) of the Bankruptcy Code to protect enforcement, free from the automatic stay, of setoff or netting provisions in swap agreements and in master netting agreements and security agreements or arrangements related to one or more swap agreements or master netting agreements. This provision parallels the other provisions of the Bankruptcy Code that protect netting provisions of securities contracts, commodity contracts, forward contracts, and repurchase agreements. Because the relevant definitions include related security agreements, the references to ``setoff'' in these provisions, as well as in section 362(b)(6) and (7) of the Bankruptcy Code, are intended to refer also to rights to foreclose on, and to set off against obligations to return, collateral securing swap agreements, master netting agreements, repurchase agreements, securities contracts, commodity contracts, or forward contracts. Collateral may be pledged to cover the cost of replacing the defaulted transactions in the relevant market, as well as other costs and expenses incurred or estimated to be incurred for the purpose of hedging or reducing the risks arising out of such termination. Enforcement of these agreements and arrangements free from the automatic stay is consistent with the policy goal of minimizing systemic risk.

   Subsection (d) also clarifies that the provisions protecting setoff and foreclosure in relation to securities contracts, commodity contracts, forward contracts, repurchase agreements, swap agreements, and master netting agreements free from the automatic stay apply to collateral pledged by the debtor but that cannot technically be ``held by'' the creditor, such as receivables and book-entry securities, and to collateral that has been repledged by the creditor and securities re-sold pursuant to repurchase agreements. Section 907(d) is substantively identical to section 907(d) of the House bill and the Senate amendment.

   Subsections (e) and (f) of section 907 of the conference report amend sections 546 and 548(d) of the Bankruptcy Code to provide that transfers made under or in connection with a master netting agreement may not be avoided by a trustee except where such transfer is made with actual intent to hinder, delay or defraud and not taken in good faith. This amendment provides the same protections for a transfer made under, or in connection with, a master netting agreement as currently is provided for margin payments, settlement payments and other transfers received by commodity brokers, forward contract merchants, stockbrokers, financial institutions, securities clearing agencies, repo participants, and swap participants under sections 546 and 548(d), except to the extent the trustee could otherwise avoid such a transfer made under an individual contract covered by such master netting agreement. Subsections (e) and (f) are substantively identical to section 907(f) of the House bill and the Senate amendment.

   Subsections (g), (h), (i), and (j) of section 907 clarify that the provisions of the Bankruptcy Code that protect (i) rights of liquidation under securities contracts, commodity contracts, forward contracts and repurchase agreements also protect rights of termination or acceleration under such contracts, and (ii) rights to terminate under swap agreements also protect rights of liquidation and acceleration. These provisions are substantively similar to their counterparts in section 907 of the House bill and Senate amendment.

   Section 907(k) of the conference report represents the Senate position as reflected in section 907(k) of the Senate amendment. It adds a new section 561 to the Bankruptcy Code to protect the contractual right of a master netting agreement participant to enforce any rights of termination, liquidation, acceleration, offset or netting under a master netting agreement. Such rights include rights arising (i) from the rules of a derivatives clearing organization, multilateral clearing organization, securities clearing agency, securities exchange, securities association, contract market, derivatives transaction execution facility or board of trade, (ii) under common law, law merchant or (iii) by reason of normal business practice. This reflects the enactment of the CFMA and the current treatment of rights under swap agreements under section 560 of the Bankruptcy Code. Similar changes to reflect the enactment of the CFMA have been made to the definition of ``contractual right'' for purposes of Sections 555, 556, 559 and 560 of the Bankruptcy Code.

   Subsections (b)(2)(A) and (b)(2)(B) of new Section 561 limit the exercise of contractual rights to net or to offset obligations where the debtor is a commodity broker and one leg of the obligations sought to be netted relates to commodity contracts traded on or subject to the rules of a contract market designated under the Commodity Exchange Act or a derivatives transaction execution facility registered under the Commodity Exchange Act. Under subsection (b)(2)(A) netting or offsetting is not permitted in these circumstances if the party seeking to net or to offset has no positive net equity in the commodity accounts at the debtor. Subsection (b)(2)(B) applies only if the debtor is a commodity broker, acting on behalf of its own customer, and is in turn a customer of another commodity broker. In that case, the latter commodity broker may not net or offset obligations under such commodity contracts with other claims against its customer, the debtor. Subsections (b)(2)(A) and (b)(2)(B) limit the depletion of assets available for distribution to customers of commodity brokers. Subsection (b)(2)(C) provides an exception to subsections (b)(2)(A) and (b)(2)(B) for cross-margining and other similar arrangements approved by, or submitted to and not rendered ineffective by, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, as well as certain other netting arrangements.

   For the purposes of Bankruptcy Code sections 555, 556, 559, 560 and 561, it is intended that the normal business practice in the event of a default of a party based on bankruptcy or insolvency is to terminate, liquidate or accelerate securities contracts, commodity contracts, forward contracts, repurchase agreements, swap agreements and master netting agreements with the bankrupt or insolvent party. The protection of netting and offset rights in sections 560 and 561 is in addition to the protections afforded

[Page: H5780]  GPO's PDF

   Under the Act, the termination, liquidation or acceleration rights of a master netting agreement participant are subject to limitations contained in other provisions of the Bankruptcy Code relating to securities contracts and repurchase agreements. In particular, if a securities contract or repurchase agreement is documented under a master netting agreement, a party's termination, liquidation and acceleration rights would be subject to the provisions of the Bankruptcy Code relating to orders authorized under the provisions of SIPA or any statute administered by the SEC. In addition, the netting rights of a party to a master netting agreement would be subject to any contractual terms between the parties limiting or waiving netting or set off rights. Similarly, a waiver by a bank or a counterparty of netting or set off rights in connection with QFCs would be enforceable under the FDIA.

   New Section 561 of the Bankruptcy Code clarifies that the provisions of the Bankruptcy Code related to securities contracts, commodity contracts, forward contracts, repurchase agreements, swap agreements and master netting agreements apply in a proceeding ancillary to a foreign insolvency proceeding under new section 304 of the Bankruptcy Code.

   Subsections (l) and (m) of section 907 of the conference report clarify that the exercise of termination and netting rights will not otherwise affect the priority of the creditor's claim after the exercise of netting, foreclosure and related rights. These provisions are substantively identical to there counterparts in the House bill and the Senate amendment.

   Subsection (n) amends section 553 of the Bankruptcy Code to clarify that the acquisition by a creditor of setoff rights in connection with swap agreements, repurchase agreements, securities contracts, forward contracts, commodity contracts and master netting agreements cannot be avoided as a preference. This subsection also adds setoff of the kinds described in sections 555, 556, 559, 560, and 561 of the Bankruptcy Code to the types of setoff excepted from section 553(b). This provision generally represents the Senate's position as represented in Section 907(n) of the Senate amendment.

   Section 907(o), as well as other subsections of the Act, adds references to ``financial participant'' in all the provisions of the Bankruptcy Code relating to securities, forward and commodity contracts and repurchase and swap agreements. This provision generally represents the Senate's position as represented in Section 907(o) of the Senate amendment.

   Sec. 908. Recordkeeping requirements

   Section 908 of the conference report amends section 11(e)(8) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act to explicitly authorize the FDIC, in consultation with appropriate Federal banking agencies, to prescribe regulations on recordkeeping by any insured depository institution with respect to QFCs only if the insured financial institution is in a troubled condition (as such term is defined in the FDIA). Section 908 reflects the Senate position in section 908 of the Senate amendment, which includes clarifying references to insured depository institution and institutions in troubled condition.

   Sec. 909. Exemptions from contemporaneous execution requirement

   Section 909 of the conference report amends FDIA section 13(e)(2) to provide that an agreement for the collateralization of governmental deposits, bankruptcy estate funds, Federal Reserve Bank or Federal Home Loan Bank extensions of credit or one or more QFCs shall not be deemed invalid solely because such agreement was not entered into contemporaneously with the acquisition of the collateral or because of pledges, delivery or substitution of the collateral made in accordance with such agreement.

   The amendment codifies portions of policy statements issued by the FDIC regarding the application of section 13(e), which codifies the ``D'Oench Duhme'' doctrine. With respect to QFCs, this codification recognizes that QFCs often are subject to collateral and other security arrangements that may require posting and return of collateral on an ongoing basis based on the mark-to-market values of the collateralized transactions. The codification of only portions of the existing FDIC policy statements on these and related issues should not give rise to any negative implication regarding the continued validity of these policy statements. Section 909 is substantively identical to section 909 of the House bill and the Senate amendment.

   Sec. 910. Damage measure

   Section 910 of the conference report adds a new section 562 to the Bankruptcy Code providing that damages under any swap agreement, securities contract, forward contract, commodity contract, repurchase agreement or master netting agreement will be calculated as of the earlier of (i) the date of rejection of such agreement by a trustee or (ii) the date or dates of liquidation, termination or acceleration of such contract or agreement. Section 910 reflects the Senate's position as represented in section 910 of the Senate amendment.

   Section 562 provides an exception to the rules in (i) and (ii) if there are no commercially reasonable determinants of value as of such date or dates, in which case damages are to be measured as of the earliest subsequent date or dates on which there are commercially reasonable determinants of value. Although it is expected that in most circumstances damages would be measured as of the date or dates of either rejection or liquidation, termination or acceleration, in certain unusual circumstances, such as dysfunctional markets or liquidation of very large portfolios, there may be no commercially reasonable determinants of value for liquidating any such agreements or contracts or for liquidating all such agreements and contracts in a large portfolio on a single day.

   The party determining damages is given limited discretion to determine the dates as of which damages are to be measured. Its actions are circumscribed unless there are no ``commercially reasonable'' determinants of value for it to measure damages on the date or dates of either rejection or liquidation, termination or acceleration. The references to ``commercially reasonable'' are intended to reflect existing state law standards relating to a creditor's actions in determining damages. New section 562 provides that if damages are not measured as of either the date of rejection or the date or dates of liquidation, termination or acceleration and the other party challenges the timing of the measurement of damages by the party determining the damages, that party has the burden of proving the absence of any commercially reasonable determinants of value.

   New section 562 is not intended to have any impact on the determination under the Bankruptcy Code of the timing of damages for contracts and agreements other than those specified in section 562. Also, section 562 does not apply to proceedings under the FDIA, and it is not intended that Section 562 have any impact on the interpretation of the provisions of the FDIA relating to timing of damages in respect of QFCs or other contracts.

   Sec. 911. SIPC stay

   Section 911 of the conference report amends SIPA to provide that an order or decree issued pursuant to SIPA shall not operate as a stay of any right of liquidation, termination, acceleration, offset or netting under one or more securities contracts, commodity contracts, forward contracts, repurchase agreements, swap agreements or master netting agreements (as defined in the Bankruptcy Code and including rights of foreclosure on collateral), except that such order or decree may stay any right to foreclose on or dispose of securities (but not cash) collateral pledged by the debtor or sold by the debtor under a repurchase agreement or lent by the debtor under a securities lending agreement. A corresponding amendment to FDICIA is made by section 906. A creditor that was stayed in exercising rights against such securities would be entitled to post-insolvency interest to the extent of the value of such securities. Section 911 is substantively identical to section 911 of the House bill and the Senate amendment.

<<<

>>>

THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Contents Display