11 U.S.C. § 556

Contractual right to liquidate, terminate, or accelerate a commodities contract or forward contract

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 11 CasesGoogle Scholar

The contractual right of a commodity broker, financial participant, or forward contract merchant to cause the liquidation, termination, or acceleration of a commodity contract, as defined in section 761 of this title, or forward contract because of a condition of the kind specified in section 365(e)(1) of this title, and the right to a variation or maintenance margin payment received from a trustee with respect to open commodity contracts or forward contracts, shall not be stayed, avoided, or otherwise limited by operation of any provision of this title or by the order of a court in any proceeding under this title. As used in this section, the term “contractual right” includes a right set forth in a rule or bylaw of a derivatives clearing organization (as defined in the Commodity Exchange Act), a multilateral clearing organization (as defined in the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991), a national securities exchange, a national securities association, a securities clearing agency, a contract market designated under the Commodity Exchange Act, a derivatives transaction execution facility registered under the Commodity Exchange Act, or a board of trade (as defined in the Commodity Exchange Act) or in a resolution of the governing board thereof and a right, whether or not evidenced in writing, arising under common law, under law merchant or by reason of normal business practice.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 39 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1939–2021 · leading case: CCT Commc'ns, Inc. v. Zone Telecom, Inc., 172 A.3d 1228 (Conn. 2017).
CCT Commc'ns, Inc. v. Zone Telecom, Inc., 172 A.3d 1228 (Conn. 2017). · cites it 12× “2 Lastly, we consider the defendant's argument that, regardless of whether the ride-through doctrine applies, § 7 (b) of the purchase agreement is an enforceable ipso facto clause because it falls under the auspices of 11 U.S.C. § 556 , which carves out an exception to 11 U.”
Bonneville Power Admin. v. Mirant Corp., 440 F.3d 238 (5th Cir. 2006). · cites it 2× “See 11 U.S.C. § 556 . On July 1, 2003, BPA wrote to Mirant requesting, pursuant to the Agreement, adequate assurances of Mirant’s ability to perform.”
Wolf v. Weinstein, 372 U.S. 633 (1963). · cites it 2× “[2] Both held their positions with the approval of *637 the District Court which, after permitting the Debtor to remain in possession pursuant to § 156, 11 U. S. C. § 556 , authorized Weinstein to continue to serve as President and Fried to continue as General Manager.”
In Re Kendavis Indus. Int'l, Inc., 91 B.R. 742 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 1988). “11 U.S.C. § 556 (1938) (Chapter X of the Chandler Act).”
Meredith v. Thralls, 144 F.2d 473 (2d Cir. 1944). · cites it 4× “Upon approval of the debtor's petition the district judge, pursuant to § 156, 11 U.S.C.A. § 556 , appointed two trustees who were disinterested, and Jerome Thralls, who was a director of the debtor, as an "additional" *474 trustee.”
In Re Philadelphia Athletic Club, Inc., 20 B.R. 328 (E.D. Pa. 1982). “11 U.S.C. § 556 . Section 158 defines interested persons to include those who “for any reason [possess] an interest materially adverse to the interests of any class of creditors or stockholders.”
Kenneth Burkhart, Through His Conservator, Byron Meeks, & Judith Burkhart v. The Kinsley Bank, 852 F.2d 512 (10th Cir. 1988). “11 U.S.C. § 556 (1982). Both the Bank and Cimarron filed motions for summary judgment, which, after hearing, were granted.”
Michigan State Hous. Dev. Auth. v. Lehman Bros. Derivative Prods. Inc. (In re Lehman Bros. Holdings Inc.), 502 B.R. 383 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2013). “Finally, the Calpine court, in dealing with comparable protections for commodities and forward contracts ( 11 U.S.C. § 556 ), held that a clause requiring a defaulting party to provide a written explanation for disputing the non-defaulting party’s calculation of a Settlement…”
Matter of Roger J. Au & Son, Inc., 65 B.R. 322 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 1984). “Bankruptcy Act section 156, 11 U.S.C. § 556 (1976) (repealed 1978). However, Chapter X reorganizations with liabilities in amounts this small were very rare.”
United States v. Birrell, 242 F. Supp. 191 (S.D.N.Y. 1965). “By order filed May 29, 1958 the petition was approved by the District Court and a Trustee appointed ( 11 U.S.C. § 556 ). The District Court also referred the proceeding to Referee in Bankruptcy Brink “to hear and determine” etc.”
In Re Sharon Steel Corp., 78 B.R. 762 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. 1987). “11 U.S.C. § 556 (1976) (repealed 1978). If the indebtedness was less than $250,000, the debtor could be continued in possession.”
In re Philadelphia & Reading Coal & Iron Co., 104 F.2d 126 (3rd Cir. 1939). · cites it 2× “Section 156 of the Bankruptcy Act as amended by the Chandler Act, 11 U.S.C. § 556 , 11 U.S.C.A. § 556 , provides that upon the approval of a petition for reorganization under Chapter X the judge shall appoint one or more trustees if the indebtedness of the debtor is $250,000 or…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.