The Supreme Court in London today gave judgment in the Waterfall I appeal, a dispute as to the distribution of the estimated £8 billion surplus of assets in the main Lehman operating company in Europe, Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (LBIE).
LBIE entered administration on 15 September 2008 and has now paid its unsecured creditors dividends of 100p in the £. The Waterfall I Supreme Court appeal addressed some of the key issues as to who should receive the surplus, which we discuss below.
“So-called” Currency Conversion Claims
On 17 May 2017, the UK Supreme Court handed down judgment in proceedings - commonly known as the Waterfall I litigation - to determine claims with regard to the estimated £8 billion surplus arising in the estate of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (LBIE).
'Close of business' is a term many people use in their day to day working life without much thought. But what does it actually mean and should the term be used in contractual documentation?
Agreeing to get something done by 'close of business' is a phrase often used when flexibility is required as to the time a task will be completed. It makes it clear the task will be done that day, but not by a particular time. However, what does the term mean when it is included in a contract?
In Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (in Administration) v Exxonmobil Financial Services BV(1) the High Court considered a range of issues arising from the application of the close-out provisions of the standard-form Global Master Repurchase Agreement (GMRA) 2000.
The High Court in London handed down judgment on Part C of the Lehman Waterfall II Application on 5 October 2016.
The judgment examines the extent of creditors’ entitlements to Default Rate interest on debts arising under ISDA Master Agreements governed by English law and New York law. As some £4.4 billion of LBIE’s admitted claims arise under ISDA Master Agreements and the debts were outstanding for more than five years, this judgment will materially influence the amount of money which must be applied in satisfaction of creditors’ entitlements to statutory interest.
WATERFALL IIC JUDGMENT (ISDA MASTER AGREEMENT ISSUES)1
Richards J provided directions on issues brought forward by administrators including:
- the treatment of interest
- in the context of various provable and non-provable debts.
The newest in the series of judgments to deal with interest arising out of creditors’ claims in the administration of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (LBIE), this latest instalment sought to deal with six supplemental issues on which the administrators sought directions.
One interesting discussion related to:
The recession has highlighted a new risk for borrowers – the risk that a lender will be insolvent and default on its obligation to fund loans under the credit agreement. This has created unexpected issues under credit agreements, which were written at a time when lender insolvency was not a perceived risk.”34
On April 20, the House Committee on Financial Services held a hearing to discuss public policy issues raised by last month’s report of court-appointed bankruptcy examiner for Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (Lehman Brothers), Mr. Anton R. Valukas. The Committee heard testimony from the following witnesses:
Panel One:
On May 5, 2009, Judge James Peck, the Bankruptcy Judge in the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy cases, held that the safe harbor provisions of the Bankruptcy Code do not override the mutuality requirements for setoff under section 553(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. As a consequence, the Bankruptcy Court prohibited Swedbank, a non-debtor counter party to a swap agreement, from setting off pre-petition claims against Lehman against funds collected for Lehman’s account postpetition. See In re Lehman Bros. Holdings Inc., Bankr. Case No. 08-13555 (JMP) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.