Posts tagged “unsecured creditors”

Federal Judge Sides With Bayou Group Creditors Against Goldman Sachs

November 9th, 2010

Goldman Sachs just cannot get a break in its battle with Bayou Group. After losing an arbitration that resulted in a $20.6 award to the hedge fund, Goldman asked a federal judge to throw out the award. U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff declined.

Bayou is now defunct, but its unsecured creditors are alive and kicking. The judge granted their request to confirm the award made by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority last June. The creditors claimed the Goldman’s clearing unit ignored obvious signs of the $450 million fraud perpetrated by former Bayou head Samuel Israel, who was sentenced in 2005 to 20 years in the big house.

“It’s significant,” said Ross Intelisano, a partner at Rich & Intelisano LLP, representing the creditors. “It confirms the largest arbitration award ever rendered against Goldman, and provides a significant recovery for investors.” Goldman spokesman Ed Canaday declined to comment.

It was not immediately clear whether Goldman plans an appeal. As is customary, the arbitrators did not provide reasons for their decision. According to a spokesperson for FINRA, appeals of arbitrators’ decisions are rare. Judge Rakoff said he will issue an opinion to explain his reasons for upholding the award. If the award stands, it could increase the requirements that Wall Street banks set before clearing trades for clients.

In court papers, Goldman called the legal foundation for the arbitration award “demonstrably wrong.” Goldman said the law is “crystal clear” that it cannot be liable for money that Bayou deposited into and shuffled among accounts at the bank.

The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association filed an amicus brief in support of Goldman. The brief provided an overview of the current regulatory context and argued that clearing brokers have no obligation to monitor the accounts of investors whose transactions they clear. The Association said that clearing houses have only a “backend” or record-keeping role in investment transactions and that they are not set up carry out a monitoring function. Forcing clearing houses to monitor for “red flags” would come at considerable expense and change the way Wall Street does business, it added.

Every year, thousands of investors and firms take their disputes to arbitration. The process is overseen by FINRA and is often triggered by a mandatory arbitration in contracts between banks and investors.

Source

Snookered Hedge Funds Vindicated by U.K. Court in Lehman Brothers Prime Brokerage Ruling

August 3rd, 2010

A U.K. Court of Appeal, in a devastating ruling against Lehman Brothers, has decided that the prime brokerage did not properly segregate hedge fund assets after the collapse of the investment bank, and that the hedge funds deserve the same treatment as received by those whose assets were properly segregated.

In a crushing blow to the plotting of both Lehman’s unsecured creditors and the clients of its prime brokerage, led by GLG Partners, whose assets were correctly segregated from Lehman’s other assets, the U.K. court has enjoined the administrators of Lehman Brothers International Europe to find those assets that should have been segregated and move them into the $2.16 billion pool already set aside for prime brokerage clients. The ruling shreds a December decision which, while excoriating Lehman for failing the properly segregate the assets, still found that those funds were entitled to no protection and should be treated as unsecured creditors.

The ruling is a magnificent victory for hedge fund CRC Credit Fund which, along with Lehman Brothers and Lehman Brothers Finance, appealed the December verdict. The Court of Appeal has yet to decide if its decision can itself be appealed.

If the current ruling stands, both the unsecured creditors and those hedge funds whose assets were properly segregated stand to get back much less, and to get it back much later. CRC and the Lehman affiliates have claims totaling more than $3 billion.

“As a result of the court of appeal’s decision, the returns to segregated clients will be diluted and it could take years to resolve what goes into the pot and who is entitled to it,” Jennifer Marshall, a lawyer for GLG, told Bloomberg News. “No clear guidance is given as to how the administrators are to approach these issues and so it seems inevitable that they will have to go back to court.”

“That could have the effect of diminishing the general pool for unsecured creditors,” Arun Srivastava, a lawyer for one of the leaders of the unsecured creditors, Hong Leong Bank, sniffed to Bloomberg. “They’ll inevitably find more money than they would have otherwise, now that they’re looking for it.”

Source

Lehman Brothers Creditors Fighting Over Carcass

June 21st, 2010

When a company declares bankruptcy, any leftover assets are distributed according to a long-settled pecking order: first the secured creditors get the best pickings, then the unsecured ones may settle for a few scraps, followed by the shareholders who are left chewing on a usually worthless carcass.  But what happens to your claim if you think you should be considered a secured creditor but, through no fault of your own, get shunted into the unsecured creditors queue?  Chances are you end up in court.

That’s the scenario currently playing out in London as the bankrupt prime broker Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. tries to overturn a lower court ruling that declared a pool of creditors unsecured.  This previous ruling from December 2009 stated that certain investors in the Lehman Brothers International Europe (LBIE) subsidiary whose accounts were not properly segregated are to be treated as unsecured creditors.

The investors who are appealing the December ruling include Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and a hedge fund. They are asking for access to money that (perhaps improperly) wasn’t protected by separate accounts. They argue that had LBIE performed its fiduciary responsibilities properly, the funds would have been set up in separate accounts and they would be classified as secured creditors. LBIE fell short of the rules “on a truly spectacular scale,” Justice Michael Briggs said in the December ruling.

LBIE’s unsecured creditors may see returns on billions of dollars in claims cut in half if the failed bank’s parent company wins the case over how funds were separated.

The high-stakes battle is for assets of LBIE held by the company’s European insolvency administrator, PricewaterhouseCoopers. If the parent company and the hedge fund win the case, the money may be taken from the general estate of the U.K. operation, reducing returns for other creditors, said Arun Srivastava, a lawyer for unsecured creditors.

If Lehman wins the case, the “cash available for the unsecured creditors will be depleted and may even be extinguished,” said Srivastava, a lawyer for Hong Leung Bank Bhd, which is representing the unsecured creditors in the case.

The U.K. Financial Services Authority is in the hot seat for allegedly not sufficiently overseeing the accounts. The FSA has since opened a review of client money rules and stepped up enforcement of the issue. The rules are meant to ensure that clients’ money can’t be used by a firm for its own purposes, and so that if it went bankrupt, client money would be protected. According to the December judgment, LBIE failed to identify and segregate “vast sums” of client money, most of which belonged to its affiliates.

London was the home of Lehman’s prime brokerage business that serviced hedge funds. PwC said it holds LBIE’s 7.3 billion pounds of available cash.

LBIE’s administrators said last week it’s offering a plan to unsecured creditors to pay out claims as early as next year using a universal formula for valuing the claims.

A majority of claimants have to agree to the plan for it to take effect, the administrators said.

LBIE affiliates, including the parent, Lehman Brothers Inc. and Lehman Brothers Finance AG, have made claims of more than $3 billion, according to the December judgment. CRC Credit Fund, which is also appealing, is seeking $76 million that should have been put in separate accounts. LBIE held $2.16 billion in segregated accounts when it went into administration in September 2008.

Clients whose money was properly segregated, represented by GLG Investments Plc, will seek to protect their pool of funds to ensure the court doesn’t decide to divide it with the clients whose money wasn’t segregated.

“Everyone’s got something to argue for,” said Mez Raja, a lawyer at CMS Cameron McKenna in London, who’s not involved in the case. “The segregated clients are trying to protect their level of entitlement and they don’t want that to be eroded.”

The FSA will also be represented at the hearing.

The regulator “would like their rules to be interpreted in a way that would protect the client money entitlements,” Raja said.

FSA spokeswoman Cerris Tavinor said the regulator isn’t “supporting one side or the other” and would be “putting forward our interpretation of our rules.”

The FSA fined JPMorgan Chase & Co. a record 33.3 million pounds earlier this month for not properly segregating client accounts, and levied two smaller fines for the same offense days later.

Source

Bottom Logo Wall Bottom Logo Reuters Bottom Logo Forbes Bottom Logo Fortune Bottom Logo Cnn Bottom Logo Cnbc Bottom Logo Fox Bottom Logo Comunity