11 U.S.C. § 560

Contractual right to liquidate, terminate, or accelerate a swap agreement

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

The exercise of any contractual right of any swap participant or financial participant to cause the liquidation, termination, or acceleration of one or more swap agreements because of a condition of the kind specified in section 365(e)(1) of this title or to offset or net out any termination values or payment amounts arising under or in connection with the termination, liquidation, or acceleration of one or more swap agreements shall not be stayed, avoided, or otherwise limited by operation of any provision of this title or by order of a court or administrative agency 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 17 cases, 1994–2020 · leading case: Lehman Bros. Special Fin. Inc. v. Bank of Am. N.A., 970 F.3d 91 (2d Cir. 2020).
Lehman Bros. Special Fin. Inc. v. Bank of Am. N.A., 970 F.3d 91 (2d Cir. 2020). · cites it 4× “11 U.S.C. § 560 . In other words, this safe harbor permits swap participants to modify or terminate an executory contract solely because of the commencement of a bankruptcy case.”
Lehman Bros. Special Fin. Inc. v. BNY Corp. Tr. Servs. Ltd. (In Re Lehman Bros. Holdings Inc.), 422 B.R. 407 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2010). · cites it 2× “” 11 U.S.C. § 560 . These provisions specifically permit termination solely “because of a condition of the kind specified in section 365(e)(1)” — that is, the insolvency or financial condition of the debtor and the commencement of a bankruptcy case.”
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). · cites it 3× “l right of any swap participant or financial participant to cause the liquidation, termination, or acceleration of one or more swap agreements because of a condition of the kind specified in section 365(e)(1) of this title or to offset or net out any termination values or…”
In Re Enron Corp., 306 B.R. 465 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2004). · cites it 2× “11 U.S.C. § 560 (emphasis added). In enacting section 560, Congress sought to protect financial markets from the volatility associated with delaying the final and prompt resolution of swap agreements.”
In Re Lehman Bros. Holdings, Inc., 433 B.R. 101 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2010). · cites it 2× “11 U.S.C. § 560 (a) (emphasis added). In addition, Congress added section 561, which provides that: The exercise of any contractual right .”
GGI Props., LLC v. City of Millville (In re GGI Props., LLC), 568 B.R. 231 (Bankr. D.N.J. 2017). “11 U.S.C. § 560 (e); Smith , at 239-40. The debtor also must pay the postpetition taxes, which enjoy priority.”
Lassman v. Sergio (In re Sergio), 552 B.R. 9 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2016). “The Trustee further contends that he may recover the value of the Debtor’s interest from any of the three named defendants pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 560 . Finally, the Trustee argues that he is entitled to turnover of $31,456 plus interest or one half of the net proceeds Mrs.”
Lehman Bros. Special Fin. Inc. v. Bank of Am. Nat'l Ass'n (In re Lehman Bros. Holdings Inc.), 553 B.R. 476 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2016). “11 U.S.C. § 560 . To the extent that the enforcement of the Priority Provisions of any of the Transactions resulted in a modification of LBSF’s rights that is prohibited by the anti-ipso facto provisions (ie.”
Bank of Am., N.A. v. Lehman Bros. Holdings Inc. (In Re Lehman Bros. Holding Inc.), 439 B.R. 811 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2010). “offset or net out any termination values or payments amounts arising under or in connection with the termination, liquidation, or acceleration of one or more swap agreements shall not be stayed .”
In Re Bd. of Directors of Compañía Gen. De Combustibles S.A., 269 B.R. 104 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2001). “” 11 U.S.C. § 560 . 10 . For example the Bankruptcy Code contains discrete special interest legislation granting priority to certain unsecured claims, such as claims of grain elevator operators and fishermen.”
Swedbank AB (PUBL) v. Lehman Bros. Holdings (In Re Lehman Bros. Holdings), 445 B.R. 130 (S.D.N.Y. 2011). “11 U.S.C. § 560 . Section 561 confers similar rights upon parties to master netting agreements.”
Hutson v. Smithfield Packing Co. (In Re Nat'l Gas Distributors, LLC), 369 B.R. 884 (Bankr. E.D.N.C. 2007). “The rights to liquidate, terminate or accelerate a swap agreement cannot be stayed, avoided or limited by the Code or the court, 11 U.S.C. § 560 , bankruptcy default clauses are enforceable, 11 U.”
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.