On September 17, 2009 Judge Peck of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York issued two orders that may significantly impact parties who held, or still currently hold, derivative contracts with Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc. (LBSF) or any of the other debtors in the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy cases (the Debtors).

The financial crisis following the collapse of Lehman Brothers and the subsequent sluggish European economy have thrown a spotlight on European Union (“EU”) state aid rules and, in particular, the circumstances under which governments can and will intervene to support a firm in difficulty. This article looks beyond the banking sector and provides an overview of the rules governing state aid to all other firms in difficulty.

State Aid—The Basics

One of the many issues which arose from the collapse of Lehman Brothers was whether “flip provisions”, which reverse a swap counterparty’s priority in the order of payment on insolvency, were invalid on the basis that they contravened the anti-deprivation principle.  This is a long-established common law principle which seeks to prevent an insolvent party from arranging its affairs to frustrate the legitimate claims of creditors.

The British Virgin Islands Commercial Court has recently delivered a decision in Western Union International Limited v Reserve International Liquidity Fund Ltd which addresses the issue of when during the redemption process a redeeming investor becomes a creditor of the fund and is therefore entitled to apply for the appointment of a liquidator.

The British Virgin Island’s Commercial Court has recently delivered a decision in Western Union International Limited v Reserve International Liquidity Fund Ltd which addresses the issue of when during the redemption process a redeeming investor becomes a creditor of the fund and is therefore entitled to apply for the appointment of a liquidator.

Pursuant to § 1104 of the United States Bankruptcy Code, the court may appoint a bankruptcy examiner to investigate the debtor with respect to allegations of fraud, dishonesty, incompetence, misconduct or mismanagement. A qualified examiner, with a clearly defined mission, can drastically affect the outcome of the bankruptcy case and directly impact the return to creditors. The difference between a successful financial restructure or liquidation and an investigation yielding little value to the creditors often depends on the approach taken by the examiner and his professionals.

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

While fears of another downturn loom, the European financial markets have innovated, evolved and grown.

Following the collapse of Lehman Brothers and the period that followed, the markets have more understanding of the credit risk spectrum. This includes jurisdictional risk, available restructuring options and the complexity involved in any enforcement process.

In 2010, Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc. (“Lehman”) commenced an adversary proceeding against Shinhan Bank (“Shinhan”) to avoid and recover pre-bankruptcy transfers made to the South Korean bank. In 2015, while a motion to dismiss the case was pending, a mediator proposed a resolution to both sides at a settlement conference.

On January 25, 2010, the U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Peck struck down a provision that used the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. (“LBHI”) to trigger subordination of a Lehman subsidiary’s swap claim against a securitization vehicle in the United Kingdom.1