BNY Corporate Trustees Services Ltd v Eurosail-UK 2007-3BL plc[2013] UKSC 28 (often referred to as simply the Eurosail case) 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[1] (the so-called "balance-sheet test") 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.[2]
The ruling related to the insolvency of a special purpose company which had issued asset-backed securities as part of a securitisation. However, the collapse of Lehman Brothers meant that certain tranches of the securities were exposed because Lehman Brothers would not be able to meet its obligations under derivative contracts which had been entered into. Although strictly speaking the Court was expressing an opinion on the proper interpretation of an event of default in the bond documentation, the ruling is treated as an authoritative interpretation on section 123(2).[3]
The Supreme Court also rejected the "point of no return" test suggested by the Court of Appeal,[4] and also ruled on the limited efficacy of the post-enforcement call option ("PECO").[5]
Facts
The company, Eurosail-UK 2007-3BL plc, was a single purpose entity which was formed to acquire various mortgage loans as part of a securitisation in 2007.
The transaction was complex, and the documentation was described as "forbiddingly voluminous".[6] The benefit of various mortgage loans were assigned to the company, which then issued various tranches of bonds to investors (then, as normally happens in a securitisation, the proceeds of those bonds was then paid over to the original lenders under the mortgage loans as the purchase price for the loans). The payments under the various tranches of notes were intended to be protected by certain swap transactions which had been entered into the company with Lehman Brothers. But after the notes were issued, Lehman Brothers went into bankruptcy meaning that the company could not expect to receive payment under those swaps. The financial effect of this on the company was that although it could continue to meet its obligations for the time being, it would almost inevitably become unable to do so at a future point (because the company was a single purpose company there was no prospect of it trading out of its financial difficulties). The essential question for the court was whether this inevitable future shortfall means that the company could be treated as insolvent today, or whether it was necessary to wait until either it ran out of funds, or at least came close to doing so.[3]
If it was decided that because the financial track the company was inevitably on meant it should be treated as insolvent now, then this would trigger an event of default under the bond documentation, which would result in an acceleration of the payment of all of the tranches on the notes. On the other hand, if the company was allowed to continue for several more years, the various tranches of the notes which matured sooner would be paid in full, and those tranches of the notes which were due to be repaid later would bear the entire loss caused by the inability of Lehman Brothers to make payments under the swaps.[7]
Essentially the dispute was between the different tranches of noteholders as to how the loss for the collapse of Lehman should be shared between them. The note trustee was not represented at trial, and took a neutral position.
A subsidiary issue which arose in the trial related to the post enforcement call option (PECO). This was a mechanism designated to ensure that the company remained "bankruptcy remote".[8] Essentially if there was a default under any tranche of the notes, each investor had a put option which would allow it to force a related company (Eurosail Options Ltd, referred to as "OptionCo") to buy the notes at face value. Theoretically this would mean that the investors would never take a loss, and OptionCo would then release the company from its obligations to avoid a bankruptcy. The subsidiary question was whether this protection should affect the conclusion whether the company was insolvent or not.[5]
Decision
The Supreme Court.
At first instance and in the Court of Appeal it was held that the company was not insolvent, and the Court of Appeal had applied the "point of no return" test in relation to determination of balance sheet solvency. The Supreme Court upheld those decisions, but for different reasons.
Lord Walker
Lord Walker, with whom all the other judges agreed, gave the main judgment on the insolvency test under English law.
The crux of the decision was how to apply the test in section 123(2) in order to determine whether a company was balance-sheet insolvent. That section provides:
A company is also deemed unable to pay its debts if it is proved to the satisfaction of the court that the value of the company’s assets is less than the amount of its liabilities, taking into account its contingent and prospective liabilities.[1]
The key here was the prospective liabilities. Various tranches of the notes were due for payment at various future dates, the latest of which were 2045 (or thirty years after the date that the case was being heard in the Supreme Court).
Lord Walker restated the basic proposition, that "whether or not the test of balance-sheet solvency is satisfied must depend on the available evidence as to the circumstances of the particular case". He noted that given the specific (ie. non-trading) nature of the company, it was permissible to use its present assets as a guide to the company's ability to meet its long-term liabilities. The insufficiency of assets which caused concern was the inability of Lehman Brothers as swap counterparty to make payments under the swaps. However, Lord Walker noted that there may be no payment due at all under the swap contracts depending upon the movements in currency exchange rates over the periods.
However, he also found that there existed "three imponderable factors",[9] namely:
the effect of potential currency movements;
the effect of potential interest rate movements; and
the state the UK economy and housing market.
He noted that these factors needed to be considered in light of a period of more than 30 years until the final redemption of the notes in 2045. This meant that trying to evaluate balance-sheet insolvency in the context of those contingencies was "a matter of speculation rather than calculation and prediction on any scientific basis".[10] He further noted (but did not enumerate it as a fourth imponderable factor) that the company has a claim in the estate of Lehman Brothers which has a current market value. Accordingly the courts should proceed with the greatest caution before deciding that a company is balance sheet insolvent. On the evidence before the court, he concluded that the company's ability to pay all of its debts (whether present or future) could not be finally determined until much closer to the date for redemption. Accordingly, the company was not balance-sheet insolvent under the test in section 123(2).
He also held that the "point of no return", adopted by the Court of Appeal, should be rejected. He stated that the phrase "should not pass into common usage as a paraphrase of the effect of section 123(2)".[11]
Lord Hope
Lord Hope of Craighead.
Lord Hope gave a short concurring judgment in which he agreed with Lord Walker and then went on to consider the PECO. Technically speaking the additional protection afforded by the PECO became irrelevant because of the decision that the company was not insolvent. But Lord Hope noted that "A PECO is widely used in securitisation transactions of the kind that was entered into in this case, and we have been told that the question is of some importance to the securitisation market more generally. So it is appropriate that we should give our reasons",[12] and therefore he expressed his opinion on the issue.
Lord Hope expressed the view that the Supreme Court agreed "with the Chancellor and the Court of Appeal that it has no effect on the way the liability of the Issuer to the Noteholders for the purposes of the default provision".[12] In the courts below the view had been expressed that "[u]nless and until the option holder releases the Issuer from all further liability, which it is under no obligation to do, the liability of the Issuer is unaffected." Accordingly, even though there might be a commercial expectation that the PECO would operate to secure the release of company from its obligations under the notes,[13] for the purpose of applying the insolvent test one should not make that assumption. In this case the liability under the notes would remain the same - it is simply that exercising the PECO would mean that the liability of the company was transferred to the OptionCo.
Some market commentators predicted that this would lead to originators reverting to traditional limited recourse language, particularly as the tax advantages related to PECOs no longer subsisted.[14]
All of the barristers who appeared in the case for every party (Gabriel Moss QC, Robin Dicker QC, Richard Fisher, Jeremy Goldring and David Allison) all belonged the same set of chambers.[16]
Reception
Commentary on the decision has been largely positive.
Most commentators broadly concurred that the decision "has clarified that the test in section 123(2) requires the exercise of judgement. Creditors wishing to rely on the balance-sheet test in winding up proceedings will find it harder to successfully establish the subjective threshold of the test."[17]
It has been referred to as a "profound and far-reaching" decision, noting in particular that "the contention that a PECO structure gives effective limited recourse is now discredited."[18] UK based issuers who operate these structures will not be able to rely on the PECO to effectively discount the value of their liabilities to noteholders back to the level of their assets, at least until the conclusion of the transaction. Conversely, it was noted that "[p]ractitioners had been looking to this case to give some guidance on the issue of balance sheet insolvency. Lord Neuberger in the Court of Appeal went some way towards doing this with the adoption of the point of no return test... The Supreme Court decision, however, takes us back to where we were at the outset ... with a petitioner needing to satisfy a court that a company is balance sheet insolvent and that exercise being heavily fact specific."[18]
However, other commentators note that "there are [still] unanswered questions", noting that the case involved "a ‘closed business’ [which] differs greatly from the majority of businesses and the balance-sheet test itself is very dependent on the specific circumstances of the case."[7]
1 2 "Limited recourse: limited effect?". Olswang. 23 December 2014. Retrieved 28 April 2017. ... the observation of the Supreme Court in the Eurosail case (BNY Corporate Trustee Service Limited and others v Eurosail - UK 2007 - 3BL Plc and others [2013] UKSC 28) that a post enforcement call option (PECO) (a structure used in certain securitisations to replicate limited recourse) would not protect against insolvency ...
In finance, a credit derivative refers to any one of "various instruments and techniques designed to separate and then transfer the credit risk" or the risk of an event of default of a corporate or sovereign borrower, transferring it to an entity other than the lender or debtholder.
A collateralized debt obligation (CDO) is a type of structured asset-backed security (ABS). Originally developed as instruments for the corporate debt markets, after 2002 CDOs became vehicles for refinancing mortgage-backed securities (MBS). Like other private label securities backed by assets, a CDO can be thought of as a promise to pay investors in a prescribed sequence, based on the cash flow the CDO collects from the pool of bonds or other assets it owns. Distinctively, CDO credit risk is typically assessed based on a probability of default (PD) derived from ratings on those bonds or assets.
In accounting, insolvency is the state of being unable to pay the debts, by a person or company (debtor), at maturity; those in a state of insolvency are said to be insolvent. There are two forms: cash-flow insolvency and balance-sheet insolvency.
Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd[1896] UKHL 1, [1897] AC 22 is a landmark UK company law case. The effect of the House of Lords' unanimous ruling was to uphold firmly the doctrine of corporate personality, as set out in the Companies Act 1862, so that creditors of an insolvent company could not sue the company's shareholders for payment of outstanding debts.
Accounting for leases in the United States is regulated by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) by the Financial Accounting Standards Number 13, now known as Accounting Standards Codification Topic 840. These standards were effective as of January 1, 1977. The FASB completed in February 2016 a revision of the lease accounting standard, referred to as ASC 842.
Wrongful trading is a type of civil wrong found in UK insolvency law, under Section 214 Insolvency Act 1986. It was introduced to enable contributions to be obtained for the benefit of creditors from those responsible for mismanagement of the insolvent company. Under Australian insolvency law the equivalent concept is called "insolvent trading".
Single-tranche CDO or bespoke CDO is an extension of full capital structure synthetic CDO deals, which are a form of collateralized debt obligation. These are bespoke transactions where the bank and the investor work closely to achieve a specific target.
In law, set-off or netting are legal techniques applied between persons or businesses with mutual rights and liabilities, replacing gross positions with net positions. It permits the rights to be used to discharge the liabilities where cross claims exist between a plaintiff and a respondent, the result being that the gross claims of mutual debt produce a single net claim. The net claim is known as a net position. In other words, a set-off is the right of a debtor to balance mutual debts with a creditor.
Asia Aluminum is the largest aluminum extrusion group in Asia, with an annual designed capacity of 350,000 metric tons. It employed, directly and indirectly, in excess of 10,000 people, predominantly in the Asia Aluminum Industrial City which housed its primary manufacturing facilities, located in the Zhaoqing region of the People's Republic of China. Asia Aluminum made its debut on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange in 1998.
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", so 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 Insolvency Regulation (EC) 1346/2000 and case law. Numerous other Acts, statutory instruments and cases relating to labour, banking, property and conflicts of laws also shape the subject.
A toxic asset is a financial asset that has fallen in value significantly and for which there is no longer a functioning market. Such assets cannot be sold at a price satisfactory to the holder. Because assets are offset against liabilities and frequently leveraged, this decline in price may be quite dangerous to the holder. The term became common during the financial crisis of 2007–2008, in which they played a major role.
Revlon, Inc. v. MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings, Inc., 506 A.2d 173, was a landmark decision of the Delaware Supreme Court on hostile takeovers.
Securitization is the financial practice of pooling various types of contractual debt such as residential mortgages, commercial mortgages, auto loans or credit card debt obligations and selling their related cash flows to third party investors as securities, which may be described as bonds, pass-through securities, or collateralized debt obligations (CDOs). Investors are repaid from the principal and interest cash flows collected from the underlying debt and redistributed through the capital structure of the new financing. Securities backed by mortgage receivables are called mortgage-backed securities (MBS), while those backed by other types of receivables are asset-backed securities (ABS).
Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington LBC[1996] UKHL 12, [1996] AC 669 is a leading English trusts law case concerning the circumstances under which a resulting trust arises. It held that such a trust must be intended, or must be able to be presumed to have been intended. In the view of the majority of the House of Lords, presumed intention to reflect what is conscionable underlies all resulting and constructive trusts.
Financial law is the law and regulation of the commercial banking, capital markets, insurance, derivatives and investment management sectors. Understanding financial law is crucial to appreciating the creation and formation of banking and financial regulation, as well as the legal framework for finance generally. Financial law forms a substantial portion of commercial law, and notably a substantial proportion of the global economy, and legal billables are dependent on sound and clear legal policy pertaining to financial transactions. Therefore financial law as the law for financial industries involves public and private law matters. Understanding the legal implications of transactions and structures such as an indemnity, or overdraft is crucial to appreciating their effect in financial transactions. This is the core of financial law. Thus, financial law draws a narrower distinction than commercial or corporate law by focusing primarily on financial transactions, the financial market, and its participants; for example, the sale of goods may be part of commercial law but is not financial law. Financial law may be understood as being formed of three overarching methods, or pillars of law formation and categorised into five transaction silos which form the various financial positions prevalent in finance.
Belmont Park Investments PTY Ltd v BNY Corporate Trustee Services Ltd[2011] UKSC 38, [2012] 1 All ER 505, [2012] 1 AC 383 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:
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.
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.
Jetivia SA v Bilta (UK) Limited [2015] UKSC 23 is a UK company and insolvency law decision of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in relation to (i) the attribution of unlawful acts of a director to the company where the company is the victim of the unlawful act, and (ii) the extent to which liability for fraudulent trading under section 213 of the Insolvency Act 1986 has extraterritorial effect.
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".
Brooks v Armstrong[2016] EWHC 2289 (Ch), [2016] All ER (D) 117 (Nov) is a UK insolvency law case on wrongful trading under section 214 of the Insolvency Act 1986.
Singularis Holdings Limited v Daiwa Capital Markets Europe Limited[2019] UKSC 50 is a judicial decision of Supreme Court of the United Kingdom relating to the duties owed by a bank where a person acting on behalf of a corporate customer of the bank directs the bank to transfer money out of the company's account as part of a fraudulent scheme.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
