Readers of our December 2009 issue will recall that we wrote about the Scottish court decision on the Scottish Lion Insurance Company scheme of arrangement. Just before this issue went to press the decision of the Scottish court of appeal (the Inner House of the Court of Session) on the issue of whether “creditor democracy” would be allowed to prevail or whether unanimity was required became known.

Protecting clients’ money and assets has been a pillar of the UK financial regulatory regime. The obligation on regulated entities to “…arrange adequate protection for clients’ assets when it is responsible for them” is enshrined in Principle 10 of the Principles of Business Sourcebook of the Financial Services Authority (FSA) Handbook. The FSA has made rules to protect client money by requiring FSA regulated entities to hold such money in trust accounts (the Client Money Rules).

In a recent Hunton & Williams client alert, we discussed some of the issues relating to the termination of credit default swap agreements that were pending before the Lehman bankruptcy court, including the enforceability of so-called “flip clauses.” (“Swap Termination and the Subordination of Termination Payments in the Lehman Bankruptcy,” December 2009.) Recently, the court ruled for Lehman on many of these issues. The court’s ruling (Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc.

Court Broadens Interpretation of Code Sections Invalidating Ipso Facto Contract Provisions

During the second afternoon session of the first day of the PLUS D&O Symposium, the panelists discussed the complex underwriting issues that arise when the company to be insured is insolvent, in bankruptcy, or close to bankruptcy. The panelists discussed the following topics and provided the following insights:

Scottish Lion appealed against a judgment delivered by Lord Glennie in which the petition for the proposed scheme of arrangement was dismissed (see our previous blog entries http://www.insurereinsure.com/BlogHome.aspx?entry=1910 and http://www.insurereinsure.com/BlogHome.aspx?entry=1985).

In a significant ruling with potentially wide-reaching implications, Judge Lewis Kaplan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed the Securities Act of 1933 causes of action (Sections 11, 12, and 15) against McGraw Hill and Moody's (the "Rating Agencies") in In re: Lehman Brother Mortgage Backed Securities Litigation.

In Clydesdale Financial Services Ltd and others v Robert Smailes and others [2009] EWHC 3190 (Ch), the principal issues before the Court were whether the third claimant, Focus Insurance Company Ltd (Focus), had a real prospect of success in its claims to be, first, a creditor (under the Insolvency Act 1986) of the fifth defendant, Alexander Samuel LLP (LLP) in respect of unpaid premiums and, second, a "victim" under ss.423-425 of the Insolvency Act 1986 of the sale of LLP's business to Jiva Solicitors LLP (Jiva) effected around the same time as it went into administration.

Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.’s September 15, 2008 bankruptcy was an event of default under thousands of derivatives contracts to which a Lehman entity was a party and for which Lehman Brothers Holdings was the guarantor. This default entitled the vast majority of Lehman’s counterparties to terminate these contracts, and almost all were terminated.

In a judgment issued on 15 December in the English High Court (Lehman Brothers International (Europe)(in administration) v CRC Credit Fund Limited & Ors [2009] EWHC 3228), and based on assumed facts presented to him, Mr Justice Briggs described the failure by LBIE to protect client monies from the impact of insolvency as "truly spectacular" and involving "shocking underperformance".