Lehman Bros. Int'l (Europe) (In Admin.) v. AG Fin. Prod., Inc., No. 653284/2011 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. County May 17, 2023) [click for opinion]
In brief
This summer Kazakhstan has passed the latest set of amendments1 to certain laws on netting for derivative contracts and other qualified financial contracts ("Netting Amendments"), including the following:
The UAE has issued by Decree Federal Law No. (10) of 2018 on Netting (theUAE Netting Law), with the aim of strengthening the regulatory framework for the settlement of obligations arising from qualified financial contracts. Parties to a contract previously relied on Article 183 of Federal Law No. (9) of 2016 on Bankruptcy (the Bankruptcy Law) to settle debts agreed to under a contract, provided that it is within the context of insolvency and that such contract does not fall within the claw-back provisions (Article 168 of the Bankruptcy Law).
UBS terminated its ISDA Master and FX transactions with Lehman Brothers Inc., was obligated to return about $23 million in collateral, wanted to set-off against that $23 million amounts owing by LBI to UBS affiliates as contemplated by the cross-affiliates set-off provision.
If you were waiting to hear what the English Court of Appeal had to say about the lower court decision in Marine Trade S.A. v. Pioneer Freight Futures Co. Ltd. you’ll be disappointed, as the appeal was dismissed by consent of the parties on October 22, 2010.
That darn Lehman Brothers bankruptcy sure is raising some interesting insolvency issues for derivatives market participants (and their lawyers of course). It’s interesting (at least for us insolvency nerds) to think about how some of those issues might play out under Canadian insolvency laws. Here are some thoughts on one of the recent cases with my Canadian spin.