Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc. v National Power Corporation & Anor [2018] EWHC 487 (Comm) is a significant case on the calculation of Close-out Amount under the 2002 ISDA Master Agreement.  

Two important points of principle arise from this judgment, which will have general application to transactions governed by the 2002 ISDA Master Agreement:  

The High Court gives an insolvency exclusion a wide scope and declines to apply narrow interpretation rules for exclusions in insurance contracts in Crowden and another -v- QBE Insurance (Europe) Ltd [2017] EWHC 2597 (Comm).

When goods are delivered to a professional storage operator (“Warehouseman”) for safe keeping or storage, it is usual practice that the parties will enter into express terms which often contain a right of lien in favour of the Warehouseman. The benefit of having an express right of lien is that the terms are clear and unequivocal, especially those relating to enforcement of the lien and sale of the assets.

Introduction

In the recent case of BPE Solicitors v Hughes-Holland [2017] UKSC 21, the Supreme Court unanimously re-affirmed and clarified the principle established by the House of Lords in South Australian Asset Management Corporation v York Montague [1996] UKHL 10 (the “SAAMCO principle”). This article explains the clarification and the practical consequences it has for those seeking professional advice.

The SAAMCO principle

Karhoo, a US incorporated company able to benefit from the Chapter 15 US bankruptcy code provision for foreign insolvency proceedings following UK Administration.

New Rules for Imposing Personal Liability on Directors of Insolvent Companies

When a company enters into an insolvency process, a director may be made personally liable for an insolvent company’s debts on a few limited bases under the Insolvency Act 1986, the most common of which are:

1. wrongful trading: if the director knew or ought to have known that there was no reasonable prospect of avoiding insolvent liquidation and he did not take every step necessary with a view to minimising the loss to creditors;

The IECA has released its Master Netting Agreement, a state-of-the-art solution ensuring credit exposures are managed and netted under a single, integrated framework that is flexible and easy to implement.

A divided panel of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling in In re: Philadelphia Newspapers, et. al. (3d. Cir., Case No. 09-4266) and held that secured creditors do not have a statutory right to credit bid their debt at a sale conducted under a plan of reorganization pursuant to which the debtor elects to provide the secured creditors with the "indubitable equivalent" of their secured claim.

This week, in a 2-1 decision affirming the District Court’s reversal of a ruling of the Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that secured creditors do not have a right as a matter of law to credit bid their claim at an auction pursuant to a plan of reorganization where the debtor intends to impose the plan on its secured creditors through a “cramdown” under section 1129(b)(2)(A)(iii) of the Bankruptcy Code; i.e., a plan providing the secured creditors with the “indubitable equivalent” of their secured claim.

Credit bidding of debt held by a secured creditor at a sale of collateral under section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code has become commonplace.1 Does a secured creditor have that same ability in a sale under a chapter 11 plan? Most thought so, but according to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, not always.