On 23 March 2009, the Committee of European Securities Regulators (CESR) published a report on the market impact of the Lehman Brothers default. The report began with a brief discussion of the causes of the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. It then set out some of the regulatory and industry responses to the challenges in the securities field including:
In his Pre-Budget Report delivered on 24 November 2008, UK Chancellor of the Exchequer Alistair Darling announced the Government’s intention to introduce special insolvency procedures for investment firms holding client assets or client money.
The procedures will be introduced by secondary legislation under the Banking Bill (which was introduced into Parliament in October 2008) following a government sponsored review by an expert liaison group.
The review, to be concluded by summer 2009, will consider, inter alia:
Several high profile bankruptcies have occurred in recent years. Most would consider a bankruptcy proceeding a last resort. But some, seeking to expunge a debt, have contemplated that bankruptcy may be a safe way to avoid the long-arm of the law. The Federal Trade Commission, however, has taken great steps to ensure that an FTC judgment firmly stays on a wrongdoer’s balance sheet.
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.
Court holds that distributions made pursuant to priority payment provisions contained in CDO transactions are protected by Section 560 of the Bankruptcy Code
This corporate update summarises certain decisions in the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court relating to the balance sheet insolvency test, agreements to agree and the exercise of contractual discretion. The decisions clarify the law in a number of areas of day-to-day relevance.
UK BALANCE SHEET INSOLVENCY TEST: Implications for lenders and borrowers
Background
In its recent decision in LBI EHF v Raiffeisen Bank International AG [2018] EWCA Civ 719, the Court of Appeal confirmed the wide discretion enjoyed by a non-defaulting party under the default valuation provisions in the Global Master Repurchase Agreement (2000 edition) (“GMRA”) when it comes to determining the “fair market value” of securities.
In particular, when assessing “fair market value”, the non-defaulting party is entitled to have regard to any distressed or illiquid market conditions that were being experienced at the relevant time.
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
In an important new English Court of Appeal judgment in LBI EHF v Raiffeisen Bank International AG [2018] EWCA Civ 719 (11 April 2018), Lord Justice Flaux approved and expanded the earlier High Court judgment of Mr Justice Knowles CBE in LBI EHF (in winding up) v Raiffeisen Zentralbank Osterreich [2017] EWHC 522 (Comm) (20 March 2017) on the correct meaning and treatment of t
In a comprehensive judgment arising out of the collapse of Lehman Brothers, the UK Supreme Court recently determined the ranking of creditors.
Principally, the Court held that Lehman Brothers International (Europe)'s subordinated debt holders were "at the bottom of the waterfall", behind statutory interest and non-provable debt claimants.