In its ruling on Wednesday 27 July in the matter of Belmont Park Investments PTY Ltd v BNY Corporate Trustee Services Lte & Anor [2011] UKSC 38 the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom has dismissed the appeal by Lehman Brothers Special Finance Inc. ("LSF") relating to the validity of an alleged anti-deprivation provision known as a 'flip' provision which, has the effect of altering the payment priority order as a result of a bankruptcy of the relevant swap counterparty, in this case Lehman Brothers.

The Second Circuit ruled last week in Lehman Bros. Special Fin. Inc. v. Bank of Am. Nat'l Ass'n, No. 18-1079 (2d Cir. 2020) that a Lehman Brothers affiliate cannot claw back $1 billion in payments made pursuant to swap agreements that were terminated when Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (“LBHI”) and certain of its affiliates filed for bankruptcy in 2008. The panel concluded that the Bankruptcy Code provides a safe harbor for the liquidation of such swap agreements and also the distribution of proceeds from the collateral.

For a company that is in financial difficulty, but which is still ultimately a viable going concern, a debt for equity swap can be an effective way to restructure its capital and borrowings and, in doing so, strengthen its balance sheet and deal with issues such as over gearing.

A debt for equity swap involves a creditor converting debt owed to it by a company into equity in that company. The effect of the swap is the issue of the equity to the creditor in satisfaction of the debt, such that the debt is discharged, released or extinguished.

On 25 January 2010, the United States Bankruptcy Court handed down its much anticipated decision in relation to an action brought in that court by two Lehman Brothers entities (the Lehman entities) against BNY Corporate Trustee Services Limited (BNY) (the US Decision).

While in other jurisdictions creditors of an insolvent company may swap their debts into equity, creditors in Austria are still confronted with a “take it or leave it” approach as to the proposed quota payment to unsecured creditors. The recent insolvencies of large Austrian companies show the inadequacy of Austrian insolvency law in that respect.

Financial crisis just arrives

Introduction

The Insolvency Act 2003 of the British Virgin Islands (the “IA”) provides that the netting of financial contracts is legally enforceable notwithstanding any provisions of the IA or the Insolvency Rules. Significantly, this means that where an insolvent entity that is party to a financial contract goes into liquidation, what might otherwise be a voidable transaction will be upheld if carried out pursuant to a netting agreement.

On 15 September 20091 the judge responsible for the Lehman bankruptcy proceedings in the United States held that Metavante Corporation (“Metavante”) could not rely on Section 2(a)(iii) of the ISDA Master Agreement to suspend payments to Lehman Brothers Special Financing, Inc. (“LBSF”). Specifically, Judge Peck held that the safe harbour provisions in the US bankruptcy code protected a non-defaulting party’s contractual rights to liquidate, terminate or accelerate swaps and to net termination values but did not provide a basis to withhold performance under a swap if it did not terminate.

Justice Jacobson's unwillingness to depart from the interests of the majority in relation to Nine Entertainment should give parties confidence that Schemes remain an effective way to effect debt for equity swaps or similar transactions.

Restructuring companies in respect of which there exists a significant credit default swaps (CDS) market adds an additional level of complexity which the debtor and all stakeholders should consider and assess early on in the process, as it could determine the success or failure of a restructuring plan.