In the light of increased volatility across many markets and disruptions to economic activity, parties to transactions that are subject to ISDA Master Agreements1 will need to think about what strategies they would adopt if an Event of Default occurs with respect to their counterparties.
Choices
The UK Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy introduced the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill (the Bill)1 into Parliament on 20 May 2020. The Bill is due to proceed through Parliament on an accelerated timetable and is expected to come into force without changes towards the end of June 2020.
Anyone with a passing knowledge of derivatives law will be aware of the controversy created by section 2(a)(iii) of the ISDA Master Agreement.1 Differing interpretations of 2(a)(iii) have emerged in litigation in London and the United States since the collapse of Lehman Brothers. The recent judgement of the Court of Appeal in London in Lomas v. JFB Firth Rixson Inc2 brings significant clarity from the English perspective. The decision upholds the interpretation of section 2(a)(iii) favoured by the derivatives market.
Introduction
We are starting to see signs of movement from the special administrators in relation to clients and creditors who have exposure to MF Global UK Limited ("MF Global UK").
MF Global, one of the world's leading broker/dealer firms entered into insolvency proceedings in both the US and the UK on 31 October 2011. US entities MF Global Holdings Ltd. and MF Global Finance USA Inc. filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the US Bankruptcy Code in the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. Also on 31 October, the US Securities Investor Protection Corporation ("SIPC") initiated the liquidation of MF Global, Inc. a jointly registered futures commission merchant and broker-dealer, under the Securities Investor Protection Act ("SIPA").
SwissMarine Corporation Limited v O.W. Supply & Trading A/S (in bankruptcy) [2015] EWHC 1571 (Comm)
The Commercial Court has recently refused to grant an anti-suit injunction to SwissMarine Corporation Limited (SwissMarine) to restrain proceedings brought by O.W. Supply & Trading A/S (OW) against SwissMarine in Denmark.