The Hong Kong Government has recently released the conclusions to its public consultation on the proposed corporate rescue procedure and insolvent trading laws. The consistent theme throughout the conclusions paper is that the Government will propose practical compromises in order to overcome the contentious issues that have stalled previous efforts to introduce a statutory regime to facilitate corporate restructurings.

The Bankruptcy Filing

Sale Hearing

On September 20, 2008, the Bankruptcy Court approved the sale of certain assets of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. ("LBHI") and Lehman Brothers Inc. ("LBI"),1 including those related to its Canadian Capital Markets and Investment Banking businesses, to Barclays Capital, Inc. ("Barclays"). The sale was approved despite the filing of over 80 objections raising a number of procedural and substantive issues. The Purchase and Sale Agreement was subsequently amended, and a clarifying letter filed, to address a number of the questions and concerns raised.

The insolvency system established under Royal Decree-Law 5/2005 applies to interest rate swap agreements if they are subject to a contractual compensation agreement, even when there is only a financial transaction under that agreement. Any claims arising from these agreements that might have accrued after the declaration of insolvency will be charged against the insolvency estate.

Last week the Court of Appeal of England and Wales handed down its decision in four appeals which raise a number of questions of construction in relation to derivatives in the form of interest rate swaps and forward freight agreements documented under the International Swaps and Derivatives Association Inc. Master Agreement (the “ISDA Master Agreement”).¹ In particular, the decision focuses on the interpretation of section 2(a)(iii) of the ISDA Master Agreement.

Key Points

The Supreme Court recently considered the scope of the anti-deprivation principle, in Belmont Park Investments PTY Limited (respondent) v. BNY Corporate Trustee Services Limited and Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc (appellant) [2011] UKSC 38 (Belmont). Understanding the scope of this principle is important for anyone entering a contract where the parties’ rights and obligations change if one of them enters an insolvency procedure. Robert Spedding explains how the courts applied the principle in Belmont and makes some practical suggestions for avoiding problems.

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 2002 a European subsidiary of Lehman Brothers created a complicated synthetic debt structure called Dante, which was intended to provide credit insurance for another subsidiary, LBSF, against credit events affecting certain reference entities, the obligations of which formed the reference portfolio. A special purpose vehicle issued notes to investors, the proceeds of which were used to purchase collateral which vested in a trust. The issuer entered into a swap with LBSF under which LBSF received the income on the collateral and paid the issuer the amount of interest due to noteholders.

Structured finance transaction documents have typically included subordination provisions in their post-default waterfalls, effectively changing a swap counterparty’s right to get paid from above that of the noteholders to below that of the noteholders.

The case concerned credit default swaps entered into between Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc., and various parties, and the rights of the parties in respect of collateral held by a trustee.