The High Court has recently considered a number of questions of contractual construction in the context of guarantees: Barclays Bank plc v Price & Ors [2018] EWHC 2719 (Comm). 

Unlawful Means Conspiracy

In Mclean v Trustees of the Bankruptcy Estate of Dent [2016] EWHC 2650, the High Court considered the application of the equitable doctrines of marshalling and subrogation in relation to a fixed charge over (among other things) a dog.

A company and partnership borrowed funds from two sources – Barclays Bank and Lady Morrison. Barclays held, among other things, charges over farms owned by individual partners and an agricultural charge under the Agricultural Credits Act 1928 (UK), including a charge over a dog. Lady Morrison only held charges over the farms.

Farm businesses often borrow from a variety of sources simultaneously, providing security through mortgages or charges over land and agricultural charges over other farm assets. What farmers may not realise, however, is how priority between lenders works to distribute funds realised, if the business gets into financial difficulties and the assets are sold.

McLean decision

One's Crisis is Another's Opportunity: Section 363 Sales With the increasing numbers of companies which were once thought to be giants of industry filing for bankruptcy, more opportunities to purchase major assets are becoming available to savvy buyers looking to expand their business or asset base. The Bankruptcy Code provides debtors with the ability to liquidate all or a part of their assets through court-supervised sales and buyers with the ability to obtain those assets at more favorable prices than they would pay if the sale were consummated outside of a bankruptcy.

Recently, the LandSource Creditor Litigation Liquidating Trust (the "Litigation Trust"), commenced various avoidance actions in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. This post will look briefly at the events leading to the commencement of this bankruptcy proceeding. Further, the post will look at some of the issues that confronted the Debtor during the reorganization process.

Background

In a May 28, 2010 decision, Judge Alan Gold of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida granted a motion to dismiss claims filed against lenders on a revolving loan agreement to the Fontainebleau resort and casino project in Las Vegas. The claims were brought by two term loan lenders for the project, Avenue CLO Fund, which had provided term loan funding, and Aurelius Capital, which had acquired the interests of other term lenders following the project’s bankruptcy.

In a long-awaited decision released on February 22, 2011, Judge James M. Peck of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York ruled in favor of Barclays Capital in Lehman Brothers Holding Inc.’s multi-billion-dollar lawsuit arising out of the sale of Lehman’s investment banking and brokerage assets, which occurred in September of 2008.

On February 22, 2011, Judge James M. Peck of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York issued a decision declining to modify the September 20, 2008 Sale Order that approved the sale to Barclays PLC (“Barclays”) of assets collectively comprising the bulk of the North American investment banking and capital markets business of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (“LBHI”), Lehman Brothers Inc. (“LBI”) and certain of their affiliates (together “Lehman”).

Setoff provisions are commonly found in a variety of trading related agreements between hedge funds and their dealer counterparties. Last November, Judge Christopher Sontchi of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware held that “triangular setoff” is not enforceable in the context of a bankruptcy case.[1] “Triangular setoff” is a contractual right of setoff that permits one party (“Party One”) to net and set off contractual claims of Party One and its affiliated entities  against another party (“Party Two”).