Introduction

Judge James M. Peck of the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held, on June 25, 2013 (the “Lehman Op.”),1that claims under repurchase transactions (“Repos”) do not qualify as customer claims and therefore are not entitled to the priority or coverage provided for customers’ claims under the Securities Investor Protection Act (“SIPA”).

Judge James M. Peck of the United States Bank-ruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York on December 8, 2011 issued an opinion on a motion of the Lehman Brothers Inc. (“LBI”) trustee (“Trustee”) to confirm his determination that certain claims relating to settled on delivery-versus-payment “to be announced” (“TBA”) contracts do not qualify as customer claims against the LBI estate and therefore are not entitled to Securities Investor Protection Act (“SIPA”) coverage.

The respected Financial Markets Law Committee sponsored by the Bank of England has published a paper, dated October 2011, containing an analysis of legal uncertainty in the FSA’s Client Assets Sourcebook (CASS) and arising from judicial decisions relating to the administration of Lehman Brothers International (Europe).

A recent decision in the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Court”) in the Lehman case has extended the unenforceability of ipso facto clauses to a provision triggered by the bankruptcy filing of an affiliate of a contractual party.

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

The Supreme Court has handed down its highly anticipated judgment in the joint Nortel Networks/Lehman Brothers appeal.  The administrators of Nortel and Lehman Brothers entities had appealed against the Court of Appeal’s decision that Financial Support Directions (FSDs) issued by the Pensions Regulator (“the Regulator”) after the appointment of administrators attracted priority status as an administration expense.  Rejecting the decision of the lower courts, the Supreme Court ruled that an FSD issued during the course of an administration will rank as a provable debt rather than a

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

PwC, the administrators in the Lehman Brothers administration in the UK, have made several applications to the Court seeking directions on their approach to the distribution of clients’ money and assets. On 29 February 2012 the Supreme Court gave judgment on issues that are central to the interpretation and application of the rules for the protection of client money made by the Financial Services Authority. The issues raised are ones that have divided judicial opinion.

On September 15, 2009, the United States Bankruptcy Court of the Southern District of New York ordered Metavante Corporation (“Metavante”) to make payments to Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc. (“LBSF”) under a prepetition interest rate swap agreement guaranteed by Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (“LBHI” and, together with LBSF, “Lehman”) after Metavante had suspended ordinary course settlement payments under the swap.1 Metavante claimed a contractual right to withhold payment under Section 2(a)(iii) of the 1992 ISDA Master Agreement as a result of Lehman’s bankruptcy.

For over eight years, In re Lehman Bros., No. 08-13555-scc (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.), has been one of the most active, complex bankruptcy dockets in the country. A large portion of the remaining contested matters in that case are claims by trustees for residential mortgage backed securities (RMBS), who continue to pursue claims against the Lehman estate for losses caused by toxic mortgages.