In Rainy Sky S.A and six others v Kookmin Bank [2011] UKSC 50, the Supreme Court provided useful guidance on the role of business common sense in construing a clause in a commercial contract, particularly in circumstances where there are competing plausible constructions, neither of which is clearly preferable on the language used alone.

The facts

One of the many issues which arose from the collapse of Lehman Brothers was whether “flip provisions”, which reverse a swap counterparty’s priority in the order of payment on insolvency, were invalid on the basis that they contravened the anti-deprivation principle.  This is a long-established common law principle which seeks to prevent an insolvent party from arranging its affairs to frustrate the legitimate claims of creditors.

In its recent decision in Belmont Park Investments PTY Ltd v BNY Corporate trustee Services Ltd and Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc,[1] the Supreme Court ruled in favour of investors, clarifying the limits of the anti-deprivation rule and holding that a commercially sensible transaction entered into in good faith and without the intention to evade insolvency laws should not infringe the anti-deprivation rule.

Background

Belmont Park Investments Pty Limited v BNY Corporate Trustee Services Limited and another [2011] UKSC 38.

The Supreme Court has clarified the extent to which it is possible for a contract to provide for a company or individual to lose assets on insolvency.  

Summary

Well-established rules are unchanged, so landlords can still forfeit leases on insolvency. In other cases, if a transaction is entered into in good faith and for valid commercial reasons, it is likely to be upheld.

In New Cap Reinsurance Corporation Ltd & Anr v AE Grant & Ors, the Court of Appeal has upheld a first instance decision that section 426 of the Insolvency Act (IA) can be used to enforce a foreign monetary judgment in insolvency proceedings. However, the Court acknowledged that where there exists a statutory framework for the enforcement of foreign judgments, in this case enforcement pursuant to the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933 (the 1933 Act), then enforcement under s.426 of the IA must follow the requirements of the 1933 Act.

In Lehman Brothers International (Europe)(in administration) v CRC Credit Fund Limited & Ors [2010] EWCA Civ 917 the Court of Appeal considered the first instance judgment of Mr Justice Briggs on the operation of the Client Money Rules (CASS) in relation to the insolvency of Lehman Brothers International (Europe)(LBIE).

Readers of our December 2009 issue will recall that we wrote about the Scottish court decision on the Scottish Lion Insurance Company scheme of arrangement. Just before this issue went to press the decision of the Scottish court of appeal (the Inner House of the Court of Session) on the issue of whether “creditor democracy” would be allowed to prevail or whether unanimity was required became known.

For nearly a year, the Scottish Lion Insurance Company, Limited ( “Scottish Lion”), an insurance company that wrote coverage in the London insurance market, has been litigating with its creditors (policyholders), including many U.S. creditors, to permit it to enter into what is known under U.K. law as a solvent scheme of arrangement. A Scottish appellate court recently ruled in favor of Scottish Lion on a preliminary question of whether such a scheme could be sanctioned under U.K. law despite opposition from a minority of U.S.

Summary: A Supreme Court decision on 29 October 2009 has overturned the previous Court of Appeal ruling in relation to Sigma Finance (in administrative receivership) (Sigma).

The first appeal ruling from the newly formed UK Supreme Court concerned the construction of a clause setting out the distribution of assets in a collapsed structured investment vehicle (“SIV”). For the creditors attempting to salvage the remains of the SIV, and onlookers in similar situations, the judicial process has been a rollercoaster ride which has left them reeling.