Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc.’s pending appeal against the judgments of the UK High Court and the Court of Appeal in the so called “flip clause cases”, concerning the enforceability of flip clauses, is scheduled to be begin with Belmont Park Investments Pty Limited (Belmont Park Investments Pty Limited v BNY Corporate Trustee Services Limited and Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc (UKSC 2009/0222)) on March 1, 2011.

In what circumstances might an individual administrator be liable for discrimination against employees of companies in administration? This was the question the Employment Tribunal asked itself in the case of Spencer v Lehman Brothers (in administration) and others.

Introduction

For all of the legal difficulties which market participants are facing in light of the insolvency of Lehman Brothers, the insolvency is providing the Courts with the opportunity to pass judgment on many of the tricky provisions of the 1992 and 2002 versions of the ISDA Master Agreement (together the "Agreements").

According to a ruling of the High Court, Financial Support Directions and Contribution Notices issued by the Pensions Regulator once an English insolvency process has commenced rank as expenses of the insolvency process (and therefore take precedence over ordinary creditors). This ruling will cause huge practical difficulties for insolvency practitioners. The decision is subject to appeal.

The much awaited court decision on the status of Financial Support Directions (“FSDs”) and Contribution Notices (“CNs”) * issued by the Pensions Regulator against target companies after the commencement of English insolvency processes in respect of such targets was handed down by the court on Friday 10 December 2010. The reluctant decision of Mr Justice Briggs that FSDs and CNs in these circumstances were not provable debts but ranked as expenses of the insolvency process, taking precedence ahead of unsecured creditors, has caused dismay in the restructuring community.

On 16 September 2010 the UK Treasury published a consultation paper seeking views on its proposals for a new Special Administration Regime (SAR) for investment firms. The Consultation included draft regulations that will implement the SAR (the Draft Regulations).

The Consultation was prompted by the failure of Lehman Brothers in 2008 which posed (and continues to pose) serious challenges for insolvency regimes around the world.

According to a recent judgment in the English High Court, Financial Support Directions ("FSDs") issued by the Pensions Regulator ("the Regulator") against companies in administration are to be treated as expenses of the administration. This means that they are to rank ahead of preferential and unsecured creditors and, indeed, perhaps ahead of the remuneration of the administrators themselves.

The High Court has decided that financial support directions can be issued against insolvent companies as well as solvent ones.

The administrators of 20 insolvent companies in the Lehman Brothers and Nortel groups had argued that the Pensions Regulator’s Determinations Panel had no legal power to determine that it would be reasonable to issue FSDs against these companies. The High Court disagreed and decided:

There have been so many articles written and opinions expressed on the spate of cases on the effect of how netting provisions in over-the-counter ("OTC") derivative contracts work when a counterparty becomes in default, that you would be forgiven for being confused about the current position. Now that the dust has settled (for the time being at least), this article takes stock and seeks to make matters as straightforward as possible.

The Determinations Panel gave its reasons for imposing financial support directions (FSDs) on six Lehman Brothers companies on 29 September 2009. SNR Denton represented 22 of the 44 companies targeted for FSDs. The Determinations Panel accepted our submission that it would not be reasonable to impose an FSD on any of the companies we represented because of the Pensions Regulator's failure to particularise its case against them.

Background