ILNews

Court upholds preliminary injunction

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Hoosier Energy Rural Electric Cooperative has until the end of the year to find a replacement holder for its credit-default swap or an insurance company will be able to collect on the security. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals made the ruling today in the financial contract involving the co-op, insurance company, and credit-default swap holder, in addition to upholding the District Court's preliminary injunction on the payout.

In Hoosier Energy v. John Hancock Life Insurance Co., et al., and Ambac Assurance Corp., et al., No. 08-4030, John Hancock agreed to pay Hoosier Energy $300 million for a 63-year lease for part-interest in a Hoosier Energy generation plant. Hoosier Energy agreed to lease it back to John Hancock for 30 years, making payments with the present value of $279 million.

Hoosier Energy entered into the credit-default swap agreement with Ambac to provide John Hancock additional security should Hoosier Energy fall into bankruptcy. As part of the agreement, if Ambac's credit rating dipped below a certain threshold, Hoosier Energy had 60 days to find a replacement that satisfied the contractual standards.

John Hancock tried to collect on the approximately $120 million in security from Ambac because its credit rating slipped and Hoosier Energy couldn't find a replacement after 120 days. The co-op was in negotiations with another company, but John Hancock wanted Ambac to pay up; Hoosier Energy then filed this suit. The District Court eventually issued a preliminary injunction. The District Court ruled that if Ambac pays, Hoosier Energy will go bankrupt covering the outlay, which the District Court called an irreparable injury. It directed Hoosier Energy to post a bond to make sure John Hancock would be made whole should it prevail.

The Circuit Court found there is uncertainty about how this suit will come out under New York law, which the parties agreed supplies the rule of decision. It's not certain whether Hoosier Energy had a duty to replace Ambac or whether this is merely an option, wrote Chief Judge Easterbrook, and the impossibility defense is unavailable if the option characterization is correct. It's uncertain whether the extent of the 2008 credit crunch was foreseeable and whether Hoosier Energy could have replaced Ambac by offering more, or better, security to another intermediary, the chief judge continued.

"All of these uncertainties collectively support the district court's conclusion that Hoosier Energy has some prospect of prevailing on the merits. Because appellate review is deferential, the district court's understanding must prevail at the interlocutory stage," he wrote.

The chief judge noted the longer the impasse continues, the more the balance of equities tilts in favor of John Hancock.

"If, as Hoosier Energy asserts, meeting Ambac's demands under the swap contract will drive it into bankruptcy, then Hoosier Energy must be skating close to the edge, and the longer it skates there the greater the cumulative risk that it will fall over. Similarly Ambac may become less desirable as a swap partner; while this appeal has been under advisement, Ambac's credit rating has been reduced twice," he wrote.

John Hancock is entitled to the security it negotiated against these possible outcomes and the injunction bonds, at only $22 million in liquid security, don't cover the company's exposure. The change in Ambac's credit rating requires the District Court to take a new look at the adequacy of the Rule 65(c) security after receiving the Circuit Court's mandate, wrote Chief Judge Easterbrook. If Hoosier Energy hasn't produced a replacement for Ambac by the end of 2009, the District Court must let John Hancock realize its security.

"The district court itself stressed the word 'temporary' in 'temporary commercial impracticability'; we are confident that the court will not allow 'temporary' to drag out in the direction of permanence," he wrote.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT