The administrator who is running off the business of English (re)insurer GLOBAL General & Reinsurance Company Ltd filed a petition under Chapter 15 of the United States Bankruptcy Code with the federal bankruptcy court in Manhattan yesterday. The petition asks for the court's assistance with the last of four Schemes of Arrangement for GLOBAL, which was sanctioned by the High Court of Justice for England & Wales on January 28, 2011.

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.

In the case of Rubin v. Eurofinance SA [2010] EWCA Civ 895, [2010] All ER (D) 358 (Jul), the English Court of Appeal, Civil Division, determined that a U.S. bankruptcy court’s monetary default judgment obtained against Eurofinance and its principals, British citizens, was enforceable. In doing so, the Court of Appeal favored a “universal” approach to international bankruptcy cases and recognized adversary proceedings as part and parcel of the main bankruptcy case under American bankruptcy rules.

The Court of Appeal uses common law principles to allow direct enforcement.

Background

The FSA has published the statement that it has provided to the court appointed examiner of Lehman Brothers Holding Inc, which is referred to in his wider report on the collapse of Lehman Brothers published on 11 March 2010.

View FSA statement to the US bankruptcy court examiner on the collapse of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc, 12 March 2010

On 12 March 2010, the FSA published the statement that it had provided to the court appointed examiner of Lehman Brothers Holding Inc, which is referred to in his wider report on the collapse of Lehman Brothers.

View FSA statement to the US bankruptcy court examiner on the collapse of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc, 12 March 2010

A new wrinkle in the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy cases emerged recently when a U.S. bankruptcy judge issued an opinion directly at odds with the decisions previously rendered by certain English courts regarding priority of payment provisions (the “Priority Provisions”) with respect to collateral under the “Dante Program.”

The Dante Program

On January 25, 2010, the U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Peck struck down a provision that used the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. (“LBHI”) to trigger subordination of a Lehman subsidiary’s swap claim against a securitization vehicle in the United Kingdom.1

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.