In the first of a two-part series, Will Pearce and Gawain Moore of Herbert Smith LLP examine some of the common tools used for, and issues that arise when, restructuring premium-listed companies.
In a keenly anticipated judgment, the Court of Appeal today handed down its verdict in four appeals1 concerning the interpretation of various terms of the 1992 ISDA Master Agreement.
In the current economic climate, brokers will find the decision of the High Court in Euroption Strategic Fund Limited v Skandinaviska Enskilda Banker AB[2012] EWHC 584 (Comm) of considerable interest, since it considers the duties of a broker who is conducting a close out and liquidating the position of a client who is in a state of default, in this case for failure to meet margin requirements.
The Court ruled that:
The Supreme Court handed down its judgment in relation to the client money application in the matter of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (LBIE). The judgment has a number of implications for firms who hold client money, and for firms who hold money with banks and other firms as clients themselves. The complicated and controversial nature of the appeal is reflected in the sharply opposing opinions of the Lords in relation to two of the three issues considered.
The Masri litigation has yet again troubled the English Court on the principle of comity and provided the Court of Appeal with the opportunity to say just how important it is in international debt enforcement.
The background on Masri
The story of the restructuring of carpet-maker, Brintons has featured in the press recently, with emphasis on the role of Carlyle, one of the world's biggest private equity firms. The facts are similar to the Silentnight pre-pack which we featured in a previous bulletin. In each case, the Pensions Regulator is said to be considering using its anti-avoidance powers under the Pensions Act 2004 to compel senior debt holders to pay towards the deficit of the defined benefit pension scheme operated by the company.
On 10 December 2010, the High Court gave judgment in a joint application by the administrators of certain companies in the Nortel and Lehman estates for directions on the status of any financial support direction (FSD) or contribution notice (CN) issued to the companies in administration or any subsequent liquidation (Bloom & Others v. The Pensions Regulator (Nortel, Re) [2010] EWHC 3010 (Ch)).
The Pensions Regulator announced this week that it will not pursue action to impose a Financial Support Direction against US company, Chemtura Corporation and members of its group after a funding settlement, involving the payment of expedited contributions to the pension scheme of its UK subsidiary, was reached with the scheme's trustees.
- Introduction
Most reading this will know that freezing orders are granted to prohibit defendants from disposing of or dissipating their assets in a way that will prevent the claimant from enforcing any judgment he obtains. If the defendant disobeys, he is at risk of contempt. But the primary purpose of contempt is to punish the defendant. Many claimants will simply be concerned to ensure that the defendant’s money is frozen.
The Sinclair v Versailles1 decision has extinguished any prospect that a victim of a fraud has a proprietary claim to a fraudster’s secret profits. It also offers significant comfort to banks, insolvency practitioners and other potential recipients of trust funds by setting a high bar for whether a recipient person is “on notice” of a proprietary claim to those funds.