On September 30, 2020, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ruled in favor of the assignee of the famous LEHMAN BROTHERS trademark against the registration that mark as a brand name for beer, spirits, and bar and restaurant services, finding that the LEHMAN BROTHERS mark had not been abandoned. Barclays Capital, Inc. v. Tiger Lily Ventures, Ltd. (TTAB, September 30, 2020, non-precedential).

Background

This was an application by the administrators of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) Ltd for a direction under paragraph 63 of Schedule B1 IA86 that they be at liberty to consent to a request from the company’s directors to distribute surplus funds to the company’s sole shareholder.

The Second Circuit ruled last week in Lehman Bros. Special Fin. Inc. v. Bank of Am. Nat'l Ass'n, No. 18-1079 (2d Cir. 2020) that a Lehman Brothers affiliate cannot claw back $1 billion in payments made pursuant to swap agreements that were terminated when Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (“LBHI”) and certain of its affiliates filed for bankruptcy in 2008. The panel concluded that the Bankruptcy Code provides a safe harbor for the liquidation of such swap agreements and also the distribution of proceeds from the collateral.

Case: Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (in administration) [2018] EWHC 1980 (Ch), Hildyard J (27 July 2018)

Under the 1992 ISDA Master Agreement, following an event of default, there is either an automatic termination or the non-defaulting party can serve a notice designating an Early Termination Date. There then has to be a determination by the non-defaulting party of the compensation that is owed by one party or the other. This is done by closing out the transactions, which involves determining gains or losses in replacing or providing the economic equivalent of the terminated transactions. Once that is done, a statement is served setting out the calculations.

Last week, Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (“LBHI”) filed two new motions in its ongoing Southern District of New York Bankruptcy Court litigation against approximately 130 loan originators and brokers: (1) an Omnibus Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaints Pursuant to Rule 7015 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (“Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint”); and (2) a Motion for Leave to Amend and Extend the Scope of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Procedures Orders for Indemnification Claims of the Debtors against Mortgage Loan Sellers (“ADR Motion”).

When faced with multiple class action threats, there is little downside in a company giving consideration to a creditors’ scheme of arrangement to achieve a quicker and cheaper resolution of the underlying claims.

Mining the wreckage

This article was first published on the Financial Times website on 10 September 2018.

It was the biggest bankruptcy in history – ten times bigger than Enron – and the tipping point into a global recession.

But what really happened on the ground during those fateful days, as the myth of certain banks being ‘too-big-to-fail’ exploded on a global scale?

It was a huge historical event, yet one with a distinctly human face.

Lehman’s ‘unknown unknowns’, and the secrets that came to light

This article was first published on the Financial Times website on 10 September 2018.

When the administrators and lawyers walked into the Bank Street offices of Lehman Brothers on a sunny Sunday afternoon ten years ago, little did they know the complexity of the task which awaited them.

For all their vast experience, legal knowledge and financial acumen, this was a major challenge.

In September 2008, the seismic collapse of Lehman Brothers initiated one of the largest corporate insolvencies in history. Nearly ten years later, in a landmark decision, the High Court has sanctioned the scheme proposed by the administrators of its principal European trading arm, Lehman Brothers International Europe ("LBIE").1