On 24 October 2017 the Court of Appeal handed down its decision in what has become known as the Waterfall IIA and B litigation (Burlington Loan Management Limited and others v Lomas and others [2017] EWCA Civ 1462). The decision also covered an appeal of one point from the High Court Waterfall IIC decision.

In Re Lehman Brothers Europe Ltd (in administration) [2017] EWHC 2031 (Ch) a proposal by joint administrators to appoint a director to a company already in administration (LBEL), in order to distribute surplus funds to its sole member (Lehman Brothers Holdings plc (LBH)), as opposed to a creditor, was held to be legally permissible, as well as pragmatic and beneficial.

It has long been considered that lenders under a syndicated facility retain a right to seek to recover their portion of a loan directly following a payment default, typically by seeking the winding up of obligors. This is based on the several nature of the rights of finance parties which appears in clause 2 of the standard LMA terms. 

BACKGROUND

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (the “Second Circuit”) recently followed the emerging trend of affording the safe harbor protections of section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code (the “Code”) to intermediary financial institutions acting as only conduits in otherwise voidable transactions.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (the “Eleventh Circuit”) has reinstated the controversial 2009 decision of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida (the “Bankruptcy Court”) that required a group of lenders to disgorge $421 million as fraudulent conveyances under sections 548 and 550 of the Bankruptcy Code.

A High Court ruling in England today has provided a significant clarification of the law relating to payment of rent as an administration expense.

In Leisure (Norwich) II Limited v Luminar Lava Ignite Limited (in administration), the Court confirmed that rent payable in advance prior to the appointment of administrators is not payable as an expense of the administration, even if the administrators continue to use the property. This means that the rent would not be given priority over other unsecured debts.

We reported to you last month a significant development in the matter of In re TOUSA USA, when the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida issued its opinion and order reversing the controversial holdings of the Bankruptcy Court in the TOUSA chapter 11 case as to the so-called “Transeastern Lenders,” a group of lenders who had previously been ordered to disgorge nearly ½ billion dollars received in repayment of indebtedness which the Court found constituted a fraudulent transfer under Sections 548 and 550 of the Bankruptcy Code.

On February 11, 2011, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida reversed the controversial decision of the Bankruptcy Court in In re TOUSA that required a group of lenders to disgorge nearly a half billion dollars in repayment of indebtedness which the Bankruptcy Court found constituted a fraudulent transfer under Sections 548 and 550 of the Bankruptcy Code.

Last week the High Court of England and Wales revoked a company voluntary arrangement (CVA) promoted by retailer Miss Sixty in a damning judgment that called into question the conduct of the practitioners involved. The case of Mourant & Co Trustees Limited v Sixty UK Limited (in administration) [2010] could end so-called guarantee stripping – where the CVA purports to discharge guarantees given by a third party – and provide powerful ammunition to landlords seeking to negotiate future CVAs with tenant companies.