Quarterly Financial Report as of October 5, 2023 (Unaudited)
Note 4 – Legal Proceedings (continued)
(a) ECAPS
LBHI owns a claim of GBP 1.1 billion related to the subordinated debt issued by LBH PLC, a non-controlled affiliate in administration in the UK. LBH PLC also has outstanding subordinated notes owned by three third party trusts known as ECAPS I, II, and III. A dispute over the relative priority of these subordinated debt instruments issued by LBH PLC was litigated in the UK courts. The Court of Appeal held that the subordinated notes owned by ECAPS I-III are senior to the subordinated debt owned by LBHI. In August 2022, the Supreme Court declined to consider LBHI’s appeal of that decision.
On March 14, 2023, LBH PLC filed an application to the High Court of Justice in England for directions (the “Application”) on certain legal issues which are relevant to the priority and payment of future distributions to holders of its subordinated debts.
On October 8, 2023, the parties entered into a settlement that resolved 4 of the 5 issues that were scheduled for trial on October 9. On October 9 and 10, a trial was conducted before Justice Hildyard in the UK High Court on the question of whether statutory interest on ECAPS’ sub-debt claim should be paid before principal on LBHI’s sub-debt claim (the “Statutory Interest Application”) and whether LBHI’s application seeking to have its principal paid ahead of ECAPS’ statutory interest was an abuse of process (the “Strike Out Application”).
On November 29, the Court issued its decision in favor of ECAPS, finding that statutory interest on ECAPS’s sub-debt claim should be paid before principal on LBHI’s sub-debt claim, but denied ECAPS’ Strike Out Application.
On December 13, the parties submitted their respective proposals on the allocation of costs and LBHI requested permission from the High Court to appeal its decision to the Court of Appeal. On December 21, Judge Hildyard issued his decision on the allocation of costs and denied LBHI’s request to appeal the judgement in favor of ECAPS. LBHI intends to file a request to appeal the judgment with the UK Court of Appeal.
The outcome of this matter will have a material effect on LBHI recoveries.
For details related to the partial settlement and further information, please refer to the “ongoing litigation” section of LBH PLC’s website: www.pwc.co.uk/services/business-recovery/administrations /non-lbie-companies/lbh-plc-in-administration.html
Solely for the purpose of maintaining the confidentiality of its assumptions relating to these uncertain recoveries, which are informed by privileged advice from counsel, LBHI treats recoveries from this matter as an Excluded Recovery in its October 5, 2023 Cash Flow Estimates. As a result, LBHI excludes from its October 5, 2023 Cash Flow Estimates all potential recoveries from its subordinated debt claim against LBH PLC (including indirectly LBIE’s litigation against AGR), and its agreements with holders of approximately 16.8% of the ECAPS.
(b) LBIE vs. AG Financial Products (“AGR”)
On November 28, 2011, LBIE sued AG Financial Products Inc. (“AGR”), an affiliate of Assured Guaranty Corp., which in the past had provided credit protection to counterparties under credit default swaps. LBIE’s complaint, which was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York (the “New York Supreme Court”), alleged that AGR improperly terminated nine credit derivative transactions between LBIE and AGR and improperly calculated the termination payment in connection with the termination of 28 other credit derivative transactions between LBIE and AGR. LBIE asserted in the complaint that AGR owes LBIE a termination payment of approximately $1.4 billion.
On July 2, 2018, the New York Supreme Court dismissed LBIE’s claims with respect to the nine allegedly improperly terminated transactions in their entirety. That ruling remains subject to appeal. The Court also dismissed the claim that AGR breached its implied duty of good faith and fair dealing with respect to the valuation of the 28 terminated credit derivatives transactions but found that there is a genuine question of fact as to the reasonableness and good faith of AGR’s calculation of its loss, and which allowed LBIE to proceed with its claim against AGR for breach of contract.