Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

The Bankruptcy StrategistKickerFeaturesTopicsLitigationSectionsNewsLJN Newsletters

Of Hogs, Electricity and Gas

By Yitzhak Greenberg
April 25, 2011

A split among bankruptcy courts has called into question whether supply contracts for commodities such as hogs, electricity and gas will receive the same protection that has been extended to swaps and other financial contracts under ' 546 of the Bankruptcy Code. That section provides a safe harbor to transfers made pursuant to financial contracts. The stability of these contracts is deemed so essential to the health of the nation's financial markets that they are broadly excepted from avoidance as preferences and fraudulent transfers. The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (“BAPCPA”) further clarified the broad intent and application of the safe harbor of ' 546.

Businesses' ability to rely on ' 546 to insulate their supply agreements (i.e., contracts that do not specify an amount of the commodity) from the potentially disruptive effects of a bankruptcy filing by their counterparties has been called into question. Recently, two bankruptcy courts had the opportunity to apply BAPCPA to forward supply contracts and agreements and came to very different conclusions. In one line of decisions, the Louisiana Bankruptcy Court looked to the purpose of the specific agreements and industry usage and found that the supply forward contracts qualified as a “forward contract” protected by ' 546(e) (addressing forward contracts). See In re MBS Management Services, Inc., 430 B.R. 750, 757 (Bankr. E. D. La. 2010) (hereinafter, “MBS I“); see also In re MBS Management Services, Inc., 432 B.R. 570, 577 (Bankr. E.D. La. 2010) (hereinafter, “MBS II“) (finding that the subject contracts were protected by the safe harbor of ' 546(e)).

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later Image

The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.

Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar Investigations Image

This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.

The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs Image

The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.

CLE Shouldn't Be the Only Mandatory Training for Attorneys Image

Each stage of an attorney's career offers opportunities for a curriculum that addresses both the individual's and the firm's need to drive success.

Discovery of Claim Construction and Infringement Analysis May be Compelled Prior to a Markman Hearing Image

A defendant in a patent infringement suit may, during discovery and prior to a <i>Markman</i> hearing, compel the plaintiff to produce claim charts, claim constructions, and element-by-element infringement analyses.