Belmont Park Investments Pty Ltd v BNY Corporate Trustee Services Ltd

Last updated

Belmont Park Investments PTY Ltd v BNY Corporate Trustee Services Ltd & Anor
Badge of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.svg
Court Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
Full case nameBelmont Park Investments Pty Ltd v BNY Corporate Trustee Services Ltd and Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc
Argued1–3 March 2011
Decided27 July 2011
Neutral citation[2011] UKSC 38
Reported at[2012] 1 All ER 505
[2012] 1 AC 383
Case history
Prior historyPerpetual Trustee Company Ltd & Anor v BNY Corporate Trustee Services Ltd & Ors [2009] EWCA Civ 1160 (6 November 2009), dismissing appeals from Perpetual Trustee Co Ltd v BNY Corporate Trustee Services Ltd & Anor [2009] EWHC 1912(Ch) (28 July 2009) and Butters & Ors v BBC Worldwide Ltd & Ors [2009] EWHC 1954(Ch) (20 August 2009)
Holding
LBSF's appeal dismissed; the validity of the contractual provisions was upheld
Case opinions
Majority Lord Collins (Lord Walker concurring)
Lord Mance
Area of law
UK insolvency law

Belmont Park Investments PTY Ltd v BNY Corporate Trustee Services Ltd [2011] UKSC 38 , [2012] 1 All ER 505, [2012] 1 AC 383(27 July 2011) is a UK insolvency law case, concerning the general principle that parties cannot contract out of the insolvency legislation. The principle has two key aspects, of which the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom ruled that only the first was relevant on the facts of the case:

Contents

  1. The anti-deprivation rule, which is aimed at attempts to withdraw an asset on bankruptcy or liquidation or administration, thereby reducing the value of the insolvent estate to the detriment of creditors.
  2. The pari passu rule, which reflects the principle that statutory provisions for pro rata distribution may not be excluded by a contract which gives one creditor more than its proper share.

Facts

Lehman Brothers logo Lehman Brothers.svg
Lehman Brothers logo

Lehman Brothers, prior to its 2008 filing for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code, created a package of 19 special purpose vehicles (including Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc) known as the "Dante Programme". They issued 180 series of notes with an aggregate principal amount of $12.5 billion.

The complex documentation relating to the series of transactions included provisions relating to:

  • credit default swap agreements,
  • consequential reduction of the principal amount upon certain specified "Credit Events"
  • claims of LBSF and the Noteholders were limited to the collateral amount, and there was no right of recourse against the issuer
  • the respective priorities of LBSF and the Noteholders in the "Event of Default" or otherwise (ie, LBSF had priority in the first case, and the Noteholders would have it in the second, and the clause was referred to as "the Flip")

A group of 29 Australian investors, headed by Belmont, instructed BNY Corporate Trustee Services Ltd, the trustee for several of the notes in question, to have the issuer of the notes cancel the swap agreement. The Belmont group, together with Perpetual Trustee Co Ltd (another noteholder) launched claims against BNY to realise upon the collateral over any priority held by LBSF under the agreement. LBSF was joined as a party to the action.

The courts below

In July 2009, the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice found that: [1]

  • the contractual provisions were effective as a matter of English law and, in particular, did not offend the anti-deprivation rule as stated in British Eagle International Airlines Ltd v Compagnie Nationale Air France ;
  • alternatively, if the provisions were capable of offending the anti-deprivation rule, the rule was not engaged because an alternative Event of Default (the Chapter 11 filing by LBHI) had occurred prior to the Chapter 11 filing by LBSF, and consequently the Chapter 11 filing did not deprive LBSF of any property

The ruling was upheld by the Court of Appeal of England and Wales in August 2009. In discussing the nature of the anti-deprivation rule, Neuberger MR (as he then was) observed: [2]

  1. the rule is based on public policy, but only to the extent that one cannot contract out of the insolvency legislation
  2. where the rule is invoked, it is essential to begin from the elementary proposition that insolvency law is statutory and primacy must be given to the relevant statutory text
  3. when considering whether the rule applies to a particular provision, there is, at least in principle, no difference between cases where the provision is expressed to apply on insolvency or liquidation and those where it is not so expressed
  4. the courts should not extend the rule beyond its present limits, especially following the passage of the Insolvency Act 1986 , save where logic or practicality otherwise require
  5. judicial decisions in the insolvency field should ensure that the law is clear and consistent

The Supreme Court granted permission to appeal.

At the Supreme Court

The Court of Appeal's decision was upheld by the Supreme Court. In so doing, Lord Collins in his speech discussed how the anti-deprivation and pari passu rules were designed to address different mischiefs, [3] and how the first rule does possess limits in its application:

  1. in borderline cases, a commercially sensible transaction entered into in good faith should not be held to infringe the rule [4]
  2. it does not apply if the deprivation takes place for reasons other than bankruptcy [5]
  3. there is a distinction between a "flawed asset" (where an interest is always subject to the condition of the counterparty not going into insolvency) and an interest which is granted outright and then forfeited at the onset of bankruptcy, but it remains unclear where the line between the two is or ought to be drawn, and there is no case where the rule can be said to be generally applicable to either instance [6]
  4. the rule only applies where the bankrupt's own property is in issue [7]

While all justices agreed that the appeal should be dismissed, Lord Mance did not rely on the "flawed asset" theory, instead finding that, prior to an event of default under the swap, neither the Noteholders nor LBSF had priority over the collateral proceeds. Once the event occurred, the priority would be determined under the swap's terms, and the Flip did not contravene the rule. [8]

In discussing applicable principles, Lord Mance observed that the pari passu rule addresses what happens in bankruptcy, and the anti-deprivation rule addresses what happens on bankruptcy. While conceptually distinct, they are quite closely allied. [9] He also provided a three-part test in order to determine what might constitute deprivation:

161. The existence of a contractual scheme, which is said to create the relevant property interest, but at the same time to include provisions providing for its illegitimate deprivation on bankruptcy, raises several questions: First, how far did the scheme confer any property interest on the subsequently bankrupt party? Second, how far did it deprive him of any such property on bankruptcy? Third, in so far as it did deprive him of any such property on bankruptcy, did this amount to an illegitimate evasion of the anti-deprivation principle?...

Impact

The Court of Appeal believed that the current statutory régime embodied in the 1986 Act provided a comprehensive scheme, and the purpose of the common law could only be to reinforce and back up the statutory rules. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the anti-deprivation rule still had a valid place in English jurisprudence. As Lord Collins noted:

102. It would go well beyond the proper province of the judicial function to discard 200 years of authority, and to attempt to re-write the case law in the light of modern statutory developments. The anti-deprivation rule is too well-established to be discarded despite the detailed provisions set out in modern insolvency legislation, all of which must be taken to have been enacted against the background of the rule.

The Court also expressed its preference for objective analysis of what is the actual content of commercial arrangements that have been entered into:

104. ...The policy behind the anti-deprivation rule is clear, that the parties cannot, on bankruptcy, deprive the bankrupt of property which would otherwise be available for creditors. It is possible to give that policy a common sense application which prevents its application to bona fide commercial transactions which do not have as their predominant purpose, or one of their main purposes, the deprivation of the property of one of the parties on bankruptcy. 105. Except in the case of well-established categories such as leases and licences, it is the substance rather than the form which should be determinant....

The point that commercially sensible transactions entered into in good faith should not be lightly set aside is consistent with recent decisions of the Supreme Court and its predecessor the House of Lords concerning taking a purposive interpretation of contracts in order to uphold the parties’ intentions as far as possible. Other notable cases in that regard include Chartbrook Ltd v Persimmon Homes Ltd and Re Sigma Finance Corporation . [10]

Belmont Park was closely watched by The Football League, as it had great implications concerning the validity of its football creditors rule which requires that debts to other clubs or players are prioritised and must be paid in full before the club is eligible to compete again in the League. The Football Association Premier League Limited intervened in the Belmont Park appeal for that reason, and had postponed its own litigation in that regard until the disposition of that case.

In 2012, the Chancery Division ruled that the football creditor rule was valid, and did not violate either the anti-deprivation rule or the pari passu rule. In his judgment, Richards J, relying on Belmont Park, declared: [11] [12]

  • the anti-deprivation rule applies from the commencement of administration
  • the pari passu principle comes into play only if the purpose of the insolvency procedure is to effect a distribution
  • if a transaction has the effect of depriving a company of an asset in order to distribute it among some only of the creditors otherwise eligible to participate in a distribution, it offends both principles
  • if the deprivation occurs on the company going into administration, only the anti-deprivation principle will be engaged

See also

Related Research Articles

Pari passu is a Latin phrase that literally means "with an equal step" or "on equal footing". It is sometimes translated as "ranking equally", "hand-in-hand", "with equal force", or "moving together", and by extension, "fairly", "without partiality".

<i>Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act</i>

The Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act is one of the statutes that regulates the law on bankruptcy and insolvency in Canada. It governs bankruptcies, consumer and commercial proposals, and receiverships in Canada.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Statute of Bankrupts</span> English legislation

The Statute of Bankrupts or An Acte againste suche persones as doo make Bankrupte, was an Act passed by the Parliament of England in 1542. It was the first statute under English law dealing with bankruptcy or insolvency. It was repealed by section 1 of the Bankruptcy Act 1825.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United Kingdom insolvency law</span> Law in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

United Kingdom insolvency law regulates companies in the United Kingdom which are unable to repay their debts. While UK bankruptcy law concerns the rules for natural persons, the term insolvency is generally used for companies formed under the Companies Act 2006. Insolvency means being unable to pay debts. Since the Cork Report of 1982, the modern policy of UK insolvency law has been to attempt to rescue a company that is in difficulty, to minimise losses and fairly distribute the burdens between the community, employees, creditors and other stakeholders that result from enterprise failure. If a company cannot be saved it is liquidated, meaning that the assets are sold off to repay creditors according to their priority. The main sources of law include the Insolvency Act 1986, the Insolvency Rules 1986, the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986, the Employment Rights Act 1996 Part XII, the EU Insolvency Regulation, and case law. Numerous other Acts, statutory instruments and cases relating to labour, banking, property and conflicts of laws also shape the subject.

<i>Re Sigma Finance Corp</i> UK legal case

Re Sigma Finance Corporation[2009] UKSC 2 is an English contract law case and the first substantive decision in the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom concerning principles of interpretation. Lord Walker said although he "was one of those who gave permission for a further appeal I find, on closer consideration, that the case involves no issue of general public importance."

<i>British Eagle International Airlines Ltd v Compagnie Nationale Air France</i>

British Eagle International Air Lines Ltd v Cie Nationale Air France [1975] 1 WLR 758 is a UK insolvency law case, concerning priority of creditors in a company winding up.

Bankruptcy in Irish Law is a legal process, supervised by the High Court whereby the assets of a personal debtor are realised and distributed amongst his or her creditors in cases where the debtor is unable or unwilling to pay his debts.

<i>Sun Indalex Finance, LLC v United Steelworkers</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Sun Indalex Finance, LLC v United Steelworkers, 2013 SCC 6, arising from the Ontario courts as Re Indalex Limited, is a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada that deals with the question of priorities of claims in proceedings under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act, and how they intersect with the fiduciary duties employers have as administrators of pension plans.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">British Virgin Islands company law</span>

The British Virgin Islands company law is the law that governs businesses registered in the British Virgin Islands. It is primarily codified through the BVI Business Companies Act, 2004, and to a lesser extent by the Insolvency Act, 2003 and by the Securities and Investment Business Act, 2010. The British Virgin Islands has approximately 30 registered companies per head of population, which is likely the highest ratio of any country in the world. Annual company registration fees provide a significant part of Government revenue in the British Virgin Islands, which accounts for the comparative lack of other taxation. This might explain why company law forms a much more prominent part of the law of the British Virgin Islands when compared to countries of similar size.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">British Virgin Islands bankruptcy law</span>

British Virgin Islands bankruptcy law is principally codified in the Insolvency Act, 2003, and to a lesser degree in the Insolvency Rules, 2005. Most of the emphasis of bankruptcy law in the British Virgin Islands relates to corporate insolvency rather than personal bankruptcy. As an offshore financial centre, the British Virgin Islands has many times more resident companies than citizens, and accordingly the courts spend more time dealing with corporate insolvency and reorganisation.

<i>FHR European Ventures LLP v Cedar Capital Partners LLC</i>

FHR European Ventures LLP v Cedar Capital Partners LLC[2014] UKSC 45 is a landmark decision of the United Kingdom Supreme Court which holds that a bribe or secret commission accepted by an agent is held on trust for his principal. In so ruling, the Court partially overruled Sinclair Investments (UK) Ltd v Versailles Trade Finance Ltd in favour of The Attorney General for Hong Kong v Reid (UKPC), a ruling from the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on appeal from New Zealand.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cayman Islands bankruptcy law</span>

Cayman Islands bankruptcy law is principally codified in five statutes and statutory instruments:

The anti-deprivation rule is a principle applied by the courts in common law jurisdictions in which, according to Mellish LJ in Re Jeavons, ex parte Mackay, "a person cannot make it a part of his contract that, in the event of bankruptcy, he is then to get some additional advantage which prevents the property being distributed under the bankruptcy laws." Wood VC had earlier observed that "the law is too clearly settled to admit of a shadow of doubt that no person possessed of property can reserve that property to himself until he shall become bankrupt, and then provide that, in the event of his becoming bankrupt, it shall pass to another and not to his creditors."

Anguillan bankruptcy law regulates the position of individuals and companies who are unable to meet their financial obligations.

In relation to corporate insolvency, modified universalism or modified universality is a legal concept relating to the general principle that national courts should strive to administer the estates of insolvent companies in the spirit of international comity. The broad concept is that it is desirable for cross-border insolvencies to be managed by a single officeholder as a single estate rather than a series of piecemeal and unconnected proceedings in different countries, and that this should be recognised globally. In practice, whilst many countries will recognise foreign bankruptcy proceedings, in many instances the courts have set some limits on the recognition of insolvency proceedings, such that the courts apply this principle of modified universality whereby the courts retain a discretion to assess whether the overseas proceedings are consistent with their own principles of justice and public policy. But, subject to that safeguard, the courts will generally defer to the proceedings which are regarded as the "main proceedings" for the purposes of getting in and distributing assets of the insolvent company. The principal is referred as to modified universalism in that it strives to find a balance between purely territorial bankruptcy systems, and entirely universal international bankruptcy system.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hong Kong insolvency law</span> Financial regulation in Hong Kong

Hong Kong insolvency law regulates the position of companies which are in financial distress and are unable to pay or provide for all of their debts or other obligations, and matters ancillary to and arising from financial distress. The law in this area is now primarily governed by the Companies Ordinance and the Companies Rules. Prior to 2012 Cap 32 was called the Companies Ordinance, but when the Companies Ordinance came into force in 2014, most of the provisions of Cap 32 were repealed except for the provisions relating to insolvency, which were retained and the statute was renamed to reflect its new principal focus.

<i>Lomas v JFB Firth Rixson Inc</i>

Lomas v JFB Firth Rixson Inc[2012] EWCA Civ 419 is the name of a series of co-joined appeals heard by the English Court of Appeal in relation to the efficacy of certain provisions under the standard form ISDA Master Agreement. Four appeals were consolidated into a single hearing, and in a comprehensive joint judgment delivered by Lord Justice Longmore the Court attempted to provide definitive resolutions to various issues of interpretation which had given rise to conflicting judgments at first instance. One academic commentator has referred to the case as a "comprehensive judgment [which] masterfully resolved a number of conflicting strands of jurisprudence".

<i>Stichting Shell Pensioenfonds v Krys</i>

Stichting Shell Pensioenfonds v Krys[2014] UKPC 41 was a decision of the Privy Council on appeal from the British Virgin Islands relating to an anti-suit injunction in connection with an insolvent liquidation being conducted by the British Virgin Islands courts.

<i>BNY Corporate Trustees Services Ltd v Eurosail-UK 2007-3BL plc</i> Decision by supreme court of UK

BNY Corporate Trustees Services Ltd v Eurosail-UK 2007-3BL plc[2013] UKSC 28 was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in relation to the proper interpretation of section 123(2) of the Insolvency Act 1986 as it had been applied in commercial bond documentation. The analysis and reasoning in the case are now commonly referred to as the Eurosail test.

<i>Chandos Construction Ltd v Deloitte Restructuring Inc</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Chandos Construction Ltd v Deloitte Restructuring Inc, 2020 SCC 25 is a landmark case of the Supreme Court of Canada concerning the position of the anti-deprivation rule within Canadian insolvency law. It held that, because of differences in Canadian law, the rule has wider application relative to the English rule applied by the UK Supreme Court in Belmont Park Investments Pty Ltd v BNY Corporate Trustee Services Ltd.

References

  1. Perpetual Trustee (EWHC 2009), par. 4549
  2. Perpetual Trustee (EWCA 2009), par. 5358
  3. Belmont Park (UKSC 2011), par. 115
  4. Belmont Park (UKSC 2011), par. 7479
  5. Belmont Park (UKSC 2011), par. 8083
  6. Belmont Park (UKSC 2011), par. 8491
  7. Belmont Park (UKSC 2011), par. 9298
  8. Belmont Park (UKSC 2011), par. 168
  9. Belmont Park (UKSC 2011), par. 149
  10. Oliver Gayner (24 August 2011). "Case Comment: Belmont Park Investments v BNY Corporate Trustee and Lehman Brothers Special Financing [2011] UKSC 38". UKSC Blog. Archived from the original on 27 December 2011. Retrieved 6 November 2013.
  11. HM Revenue and Customs v The Football League Ltd & Anor [2012] EWHC 1372(Ch) at para. 73–104(25 May 2012)
  12. "Pari passu rule on insolvency clarified and limited" (PDF). Linklaters. 29 May 2012.

Further reading