The High Court in London gave judgment on parts A and B of the Lehman Waterfall II Application on 31 July 2015.  The application is part of the ongoing dispute as to the distribution of the estimated surplus of more than £7 billion in the main Lehman operating company in Europe, Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (LBIE).

On 31 July 2015, the English High Court delivered its judgments in the ‘Waterfall IIA’ and ‘Waterfall IIB’ cases. The decisions are important to stakeholders in determining key questions about how, following payment in 2014 of all the provable claims, the estimated £7.39-billion surplus (the ‘Surplus’) in Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (in administration) (‘LBIE’) will be shared amongst them. For others, the decisions may be of general interest in probing some rarely aired legal issues relating to the lower levels of the insolvency payment waterfall.

The Court of Appeal in London today gave judgment in the Waterfall I Appeal, a dispute as to the distribution of the estimated £7 billion surplus of assets in the main Lehman operating company in Europe, Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (LBIE).

LBIE entered administration on 15 September 2008 and has now paid its unsecured creditors 100p for every £1 owed.  The Waterfall I Appeal addressed some of the key issues as to who should receive the surplus, which we discuss below.

Currency Conversion Claims

The recent appeal to the High Court in Woolsey v Payne [2015] EWHC 968 (Ch), from the Chief Registrar in insolvency proceedings, considered the application of sections 16B and 74(1)(a) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, which relate to the enforceability of loans made for business purposes and/or in the course of a business.

Key Point

A distressed debt purchaser may be able to rely on misrepresentations made by the borrower to the original lender in published documents to recover loss.

The Facts

An Irish investment company ("Taberna") claimed damages for misrepresentations made by or on behalf of a large Danish bank ("Roskilde"), in investor presentation documents and annual results, which induced Taberna to enter into a secondary market purchase of subordinated notes originally issued by Roskilde.

The Decision

After a stream of successes for lenders in valuation claims against valuers in recent times, the recent success for a valuer in an application for summary judgment in the case of Tiuta International Ltd (in liquidation) v De Villiers Chartered Surveyors Ltd offers some comfort to valuers. It demonstrates the courts’ unwillingness to follow creative attempts by lenders to establish a cause of action by disregarding the established legal principles in respect of causation in valuation claims.  

Mr and Mrs D (the “Second and Third Defendants”) owned and controlled Stoke Place Hotel Ltd (the First Defendant) and were also major shareholders of DHL (a hotel company) which went into administration in September 2012 (the “Administration”).

In Graves v Capital Home Loans Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 1297, it was held that the appointment of Law of Property Act Receivers by a mortgagee because the borrower lacked the mental capacity to manage his financial affairs was valid even if the borrower was mentally fit by the time of the appointment. It was further held that the treatment of the borrower by the lender in such circumstances did not give rise to an unfair relationship under ss 140A and 140B of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA 1974).

Background

In Spencer Day v Tiuta International Ltd and other [2014] EWCA Civ 1246, the Court held that a creditor who relies on subrogation is still a secured creditor, and therefore cannot be subject to a set off claim for unliquidated damages as per Natwest v Skelton (1993).

Background

UK LEGAL HIGHLIGHTS 2014 AND BEYOND Welcome to our 2014 edition of UK Legal Highlights. This publication is a reminder of some of the most important and significant developments DLA Piper reported in 2014, along with some forthcoming developments to look out for in 2015 and beyond.