In a highly anticipated decision, the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the "Court") on June 28, 2016, dismissed Counts I through XIX of Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc.'s ("LBSF") fourth amended complaint (the "Complaint") in Lehman Bros. Special Fin. Inc. v. Bank of America, N.A., et al.1 In doing so, the Court removed the majority of the approximately 250 noteholder, issuer and indenture trustee defendants from the LBSF lawsuit to recover over $1 billion distributed in connection with 44 swap transactions.

New York bankruptcy judge dismisses claims to recover approximately $1 billion that had been distributed to noteholders following commencement of the Lehman Brothers chapter 11 proceedings in September 2008.

The bankruptcy court overseeing the Lehman Brothers chapter 11 cases rejected efforts by Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc. (LBSF) to recover roughly $1 billion in payments made to numerous noteholder defendants from the liquidation of collateral originally pledged to secure both obligations under notes issued by special purpose entities and credit default swap (CDS) obligations to LBSF, holding that the termination of the swap and liquidation and distribution of the collateral were protected by the Bankruptcy Code’s safe harbor.

Court holds that distributions made pursuant to priority payment provisions contained in CDO transactions are protected by Section 560 of the Bankruptcy Code

Latest Lehman judgment reassures end users on Close-out Rights

It is undeniable that the legal complexities, and unprecedented facts, of the long running Lehman Brothers saga have generated a wealth of legal principal, most notably through the Waterfall series of litigation.

On 31 July 2015, the English High Court delivered its judgments in the ‘Waterfall IIA’ and ‘Waterfall IIB’ cases. The decisions are important to stakeholders in determining key questions about how, following payment in 2014 of all the provable claims, the estimated £7.39-billion surplus (the ‘Surplus’) in Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (in administration) (‘LBIE’) will be shared amongst them. For others, the decisions may be of general interest in probing some rarely aired legal issues relating to the lower levels of the insolvency payment waterfall.

The English High Court in Fondazione Enasarco v Lehman Brothers Finance S.A. and Anthracite Rated Investments (Cayman) Limited [2015] EWHC 1307 (Ch) applied a common sense approach in the circumstances to the determination of Loss under the 1992 ISDA Master Agreement. The judgment of the judge (Mr Justice David Richards) is useful reading for those involved in structured products and derivatives.

Background

The Pensions Regulator has announced, following several years of proceedings and court skirmishes, that a compromise has been reached in relation to the Financial Support Directions (FSDs) issued under the Lehman Brothers UK pension scheme.

FSDs and the Lehmans case – a reminder

Again, of interest to all schemes providing defined benefits is the recent settlement in the litigation involving the Lehman Brothers Scheme, where the payment of £184 million, representing costs of the buying-out benefits, has been agreed.

Following a detailed investigation by TPR commencing in 2008, and a legal battle through the hierarchy of courts up to the Supreme Court (SC), members of the Lehman Brothers Pension Scheme will receive their full benefits after a settlement was reached on 18 August 2014.

After six years of legal action and investigations, the Pensions Regulator (TPR) has agreed a £184 million settlement with PwC, administrators for the Lehman Brothers Group, which has secured members' benefits under the UK pension scheme.  It also means the scheme will not go into the Pension Protection Fund (PPF).

Following the insolvency of the Lehman group in 2008, TPR began regulatory action in 2010 seeking the issue of a Financial Support Direction (FSD) to certain UK group companies.  An FSD requires recipients to provide extra financial support to a scheme.