Summary
Providing financial support to related parties that are in financial distress may be in the interest of the group as a whole, but is not necessarily in the direct interest of the individual group company providing such support. This client briefing discusses that issue from a Dutch corporate law and tax law perspective, including the potential consequences if there is a material difference between the financial risks assumed by the Dutch company and the benefits of entering into such a transaction.
Introduction
On November 1 2007 the State Commission for Insolvency Law presented the Preliminary Bill for an Insolvency Act to the minister of justice. The most important changes to the existing Bankruptcy Act are outlined in this update.
Our legislation prohibits (as unconscionable) clauses that, while not negotiated with consumers, require “collateral disproportionate to the risk assumed” (art. 88(1) of the Spanish Consumer and User Protection Act). Note that this rule has not been the subject of any case law development and that the clause that paradoxically could yield to art.
Introduction
On 14 December 2014 the DIFC Law No. 2 of 2014, or the “Netting Law of 2014” (the “Law”), came into force as a law in the Dubai International Financial Centre (“DIFC”) following its enactment on 7 December 2014 by His Highness Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Ruler of Dubai.
Introduction
The Supreme Court recently considered the scope of the anti-deprivation principle, in Belmont Park Investments PTY Limited (respondent) v. BNY Corporate Trustee Services Limited and Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc (appellant) [2011] UKSC 38 (Belmont). Understanding the scope of this principle is important for anyone entering a contract where the parties’ rights and obligations change if one of them enters an insolvency procedure. Robert Spedding explains how the courts applied the principle in Belmont and makes some practical suggestions for avoiding problems.
In its recent decision in Belmont Park Investments PTY Ltd v BNY Corporate trustee Services Ltd and Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc,[1] the Supreme Court ruled in favour of investors, clarifying the limits of the anti-deprivation rule and holding that a commercially sensible transaction entered into in good faith and without the intention to evade insolvency laws should not infringe the anti-deprivation rule.
Background
Key Issues
The transaction documents (eg ISDA, GMRA or prime brokerage agreements) for derivatives transactions (or other transactions involving netting provisions) are usually governed by English law or New York law. However, there are a number of local law issues which our clients should consider when proposing to enter into such transactions with offshore counterparties, including the following key issues:
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.