On 1 November 2012, the High Court gave judgment in favour of the Special Administrators (“SAs”) of MF Global UK Ltd (“MFGUK”), in relation to a claim by MF Global Inc (“MFGI”) arising from certain repo-to-maturity transactions (the “RTM Application”). These transactions concerned the repo of European debt securities by MFGI to MFGUK, which were governed by a Global Master Repurchase Agreement (“GMRA”).
- The 1992 ISDA Master Agreement: Court of Appeal provides clarity on payment obligations owed to insolvent counterparties
Lomas v JFB Firth Rixson Inc [2012] EWCA Civ 419
Last week the Court of Appeal of England and Wales handed down its decision in four appeals which raise a number of questions of construction in relation to derivatives in the form of interest rate swaps and forward freight agreements documented under the International Swaps and Derivatives Association Inc. Master Agreement (the “ISDA Master Agreement”).1 In particular, the decision focuses on the interpretation of section 2(a)(iii) of the ISDA Master Agreement.
Key Points
Application for an administration order in respect of FM Front Door Ltd. The application followed FM’s failure to make payments under a loan from the Dunfermline Building Society obtained to assist with the purchase of flats at the Skyline development on Finniestoun Street in Glasgow. The loan was secured by a floating charge and standard securities over each of the flats. FM’s parent company FM Developments also granted a guarantee for the loan.
Clause 13 of the loan agreement provided that the grounds for default included:
In Rainy Sky S.A and six others v Kookmin Bank [2011] UKSC 50, the Supreme Court provided useful guidance on the role of business common sense in construing a clause in a commercial contract, particularly in circumstances where there are competing plausible constructions, neither of which is clearly preferable on the language used alone.
The facts
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.
In Finnerty v Clark the appellants were the sole shareholders and substantial unsecured creditors of St George's Property Services (London) Ltd (St George). The respondents were administrators of St George. The High Court decision was reviewed in our December 2010 insolvency legal update.