Photo of Simon Hugo

Simon Hugo

Subscribe to Simon Hugo's Posts
Contact:Read more about Simon Hugo

Read time: 5 minutes

On 2 April 2020, the European Banking Authority (EBA) published guidelines on legislative and non-legislative moratoria on loan repayments in light of COVID-19 (EBA/GL/2020/2) (the Guidelines). The Guidelines were updated by a supplementary supervisory statement addressing the treatment of securitised exposures subject to payment moratoria, issued on 22 April 2020.

The supplementary supervisory statement addressing securitised exposures establish where legislative and non-legislative moratoria should not trigger default or forbearance classifications for regulatory capital purposes and where actions taken under payment moratoria will not be considered a breach of the prohibition of ‘implicit support’.
Continue Reading EBA publishes additional supervisory measures on legislative and non-legislative moratoria on loan repayments in light of COVID-19

Blog - reasonableRead time: 4 minutes

The provision of indemnities, particularly those provided to corporate trustees and agents, is an important feature of an effectively functioning structured finance market.  It enables the parties involved to allocate the risks of unforeseen expenditure to those parties with the ultimate economic interest in the transaction and allows trustees and agents to keep their fees at a reasonable level.

Whilst the need for indemnities is generally accepted, the terms on which they are provided can be an area of robust negotiation.
Continue Reading Indemnities – beware the consequences of “reasonableness”

Read time: less than 1 minute

This week saw the High Court clash between the swap provider, UBS, and the recently appointed replacement note trustee (Glas Trust Corporation) on the embattled Fairhold Securitisation.  The dispute at hand centres on whether or not the ad hoc noteholders group’s fees and expenses (comprising the fees of its financial adviser and lawyers) can be recovered from the waterfall, effectively subordinating payments to the swap providers and noteholders.  The financial adviser’s fees were reported to be in excess of £3.75m.
Continue Reading Fairhold Securitisation – can noteholders claim advisers’ fees through the trustee?

Picture this: it’s 1793. In England, George III is on the throne and the Bank of England issues the first ever ‘fiver’.  In the U.S.A, George Washington hosts the first US cabinet meeting as President and the capital moves from Philadelphia to Washington, D.C.  In France, the French Revolution is in full swing with King Louis XVI guillotined, and France becomes the first country to adopt the metric system.

And in Ireland, the Irish Stock Exchange is founded. Though of course, that is not to say that there weren’t other important things happening in Ireland at the time as well….
Continue Reading With-Hold on a second?! New ISE rule leads to automatic de-listing of debt securities at scheduled maturity

It’s not been a good month for Class X Noteholders. Following the judgment in the Windermere VII case (see our commentary here) in which Snowden J found against the Class X Noteholder, the Chancellor of the High Court, Etherton J, in Titan Europe 2006-1 P.L.C. and others [2016] EWHC 969 (Ch) similarly rejected the arguments put forward by the Class X Noteholders.
Continue Reading The Class X Factor: It’s a NO from the Chancellor

As outlined in our previous blog, X-tra, X-tra, Real All About It! published on Friday 8 April, Mr Justice Snowden handed down judgment of the High Court in the much anticipated Windermere VII Class X Notes dispute.
Continue Reading X-tra X-tra read more about it! First English Court Ruling on Class X Notes in European CMBS

Mr Justice Snowden has handed down judgment of the High Court in the much anticipated Windermere VII Class X Notes dispute.

For those of you who haven’t been following it, the dispute relates to the Windermere VII Pan European CMBS in which the holder of the Class X Notes and a holder of the Class…

If you thought the wrangling over special servicer replacements was over following Richard Snowden QC’s judgment in US Bank v Titan Europe 2007-1 (NHP) plc in April last year, think again.

Ever since Fitch issued their press release confirming that as a matter of policy it would not provide rating agency confirmations (RACs) in relation…

Previously in Clash of the Titan 2007-1: Zeus has spoken, we took a brief look at the judgment delivered by Richard Snowden QC.  Another interesting aspect of the case which is beginning to generate commentary is that one of the other pre-conditions to the replacement of the Special Servicer is that the successor Special Servicer “has experience in servicing mortgages of commercial property on similar terms to that required under this Agreement and is approved by the Issuer and the Note Trustee (such approval in each case not to be unreasonably withheld)”.

On this point, the court found that the above clause contains two separate and distinct requirements, each of which must be satisfied before the termination of appointment of the Special Servicer can take effect – (i) the experience of the successor Special Servicer and (ii) the approval by the Issuer/Note Trustee.

Snowden QC confirmed that “given the importance of the role of Special Servicer, there is every reason why that parties should have intended that there should be a proper check on the suitability of the Special Servicer for the task; past experience is one, but only one, of the obvious factors that might be relevant in that regard”.  He has, it seems, implied that the Note Trustee and the Issuer should have significant involvement in the effectiveness of that check.

Continue Reading Clash of the Titan 2007-1 (Part III): Controversy Thunders On

Well, maybe not Zeus but Richard Snowden QC no less.  On Valentine’s Day this year, we published our blog entitled “Clash of the Titan 2007-1”. Now that the red roses have wilted, the champagne drunk and the chocolates eaten, let us take a look at what the first instance decision in Titan Europe 2007-1 (NHP) has to say about replacing special servicers in European securitisation deals.

In providing directions to the trustee, Richard Snowden QC considered two important issues: Who is the Controlling Party entitled to serve notice under the Servicing Agreement to require the termination of the appointment of the Special Servicer?  What happens if the Servicing Agreement dictates that RACs are required as a pre-condition to the replacement of the Special Servicer but the condition could not be satisfied due to a rating agency declining to provide RACs as a matter of policy?

The “Controlling Party” is typically the party exposed to the first loss position on the structure i.e. either the B-piece lender or if value breaks in the securitised portion, the most junior class of noteholders, i.e. the “Controlling Class”.

Continue Reading Clash of the Titan 2007-1 (Part II): Zeus has spoken