Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 11 SEPTEMBER 2016

The Courts flip-flopping (again) on the validity of "flip clauses"

The validity of flip clauses has been the subject of much litigation in the context of Lehman Brothers' bankruptcy.

AustraliaFinance and Banking

Judge Chapman's judgment is obviously a welcome development for participants in the structured capital markets, particularly those who transact regularly with US counterparties.

On 28 June 2016, the US Bankruptcy Court handed down an important judgment in Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc. v. Bank of America National Association (Case No. 10-3547), summarily dismissing claims of Lehman Brother Special Financing Inc. (LBSF), which sought to claw back collateral proceeds in respect of more than 40 series of collateralised debt obligations (CDOs). Those proceeds were distributed to noteholders in late 2008, following the collapse of Lehman Brothers.

In dismissing LBSF's complaints, Judge Chapman departed from a previous ruling of Judge Peck which found that "flip clauses" (ie. provisions in structured finance documents that reverse or "flip" the priority of payment obligations owed to swap counterparties on the one hand and noteholders on the other, following a

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from