In 2002 a European subsidiary of Lehman Brothers created a complicated synthetic debt structure called Dante, which was intended to provide credit insurance for another subsidiary, LBSF, against credit events affecting certain reference entities, the obligations of which formed the reference portfolio. A special purpose vehicle issued notes to investors, the proceeds of which were used to purchase collateral which vested in a trust. The issuer entered into a swap with LBSF under which LBSF received the income on the collateral and paid the issuer the amount of interest due to noteholders.

FSA has published a guidance consultation on the prudential treatment of liquidity swaps. According to the FSA, a liquidity swap involves a liquidity transformation. Typically they involve transactions between an insurer and a bank whereby high-credit quality, liquid assets (such as gilts) held by an insurer is exchanged with illiquid or less liquid assets (such as asset-backed securities (ABS)) held by a bank. The proposed guidance will apply to all regulated firms transacting liquidity swaps (not just banks and insurers) and the deadline for responses is 21 September 2011.

 The CBI has responded to CRD4 publication saying it believes the Basel III reforms are "an important piece of the jigsaw to strengthen the global banking system", but that benefits from greater financial stability must be proportionate to the cost businesses will bear. In the CBI's opinion, the new rules:

The case of White v Davenham Trust Ltd, has reaffirmed that a creditor can choose its own method of enforcing a debt which has been guaranteed even where it might hold security for that debt.

The Sinclair v Versailles1 decision has extinguished any prospect that a victim of a fraud has a proprietary claim to a fraudster’s secret profits. It also offers significant comfort to banks, insolvency practitioners and other potential recipients of trust funds by setting a high bar for whether a recipient person is “on notice” of a proprietary claim to those funds.

A recent High Court case involving unlawful loans to directors illustrates the potential pitfalls involved in calculating limitation periods, and the circumstances in which the usual six year statutory limitation period will not apply to a recovery claim against a fiduciary.

Facts

Broadside Colours and Chemicals Ltd was a family firm supplying dyes to the textile trade. The directors were Geoffrey Button, his wife Catherine Button, and their son James Button. Only the father and son were shareholders.

Clauses common in syndicated facility agreements were considered and construed in favour of the majority lenders:

-- Strategic Value Master Fund Ltd v Ideal Standard International Acquisition S.A.R.L. (England, High Court, 4 February 2011)

This case involved an examination of clauses common to syndicated facility agreements. The agreement here was based on the LMA standard.

The Financial Markets and Insolvency (Settlement Finality and Financial Collateral Arrangements) (Amendment) Regulations 2010 came into force on 6 April 2011.

In circumstances where a debtor lacks mental capacity to deal with a statutory demand and subsequent bankruptcy petition, the court will rescind or annul a bankruptcy order.

Where lenders rely on floating charge security to make recoveries from companies in administration, some recent cases have massively increased the potential for administration expenses to swallow up those recoveries. The more well-known cases could just be the start. So, what are the potential risks? What can lenders do in the face of the law as it currently stands? What is going to happen next?

The Nortel decisions