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

S Caldwell blog - 12.08.15Eight years on from the credit crisis, the drive to rehabilitate securitisation continues.

The most recent body to speak up for the increasingly regulated structures is the European Banking Authority, which last month published an Opinion and an accompanying Report on the establishment of a European framework for qualifying securitisations for the purposes of determining

clocksI bring good news from the Bank of England. Whether you have been up all night trying to close a £1 billion securities transaction for your client, or you are buying a house and there’s a last minute snag, the deadline for settling securities transactions and making high-value cash transfers is due to be extended

Minibonds photoThis may be a slightly odd question with which to start a legal blog post, but do you like burritos, wine, or chocolate? Who doesn’t, right? If only there was a way of making money off your addiction to tasty Mexican treats or decadent Swiss truffles? Well, as it turns out, there might be…

Mini-bonds

Running man - RBSUThe Investment Plan, developed by the European Commission, has the potential to be one of the most important and radical changes to how the European Union operates in the last 25 years.  Not only will it seek to harmonise the financial and regulatory barriers to investment, but it will look to harness the collective

Much has been written regarding the recent EU and US sanctions targeting the Russian capital markets, military and oil sectors (our own commentary can be found here) and the broad nature of the sanctions has, it would seem, produced some (probably) unintended consequences when applied to the mechanics of day to day capital markets operations.  On their face, the capital markets sectoral sanctions are designed to cut off the ability of the sanctioned companies to access funding in the equity and debt markets.  Hence, broadly speaking, anybody who must comply with EU or US sanctions cannot participate or deal in any new debt or equity issued by a sanctioned entity once they have been put on the sanctions lists.  Existing debt or equity issued prior to the implementation of sanctions is grandfathered.

Continue Reading The issue of sanctions

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

It’s been barely six weeks since the EMIR trade reporting obligations came into effect on 12 February and, as the regulatory dust begins to settle, parties to derivative transactions are still in the process of assessing their duties under the new regime.  In the lead up to the February deadline, bank and securities firms were busy implementing their client outreach programmes whilst we were busy putting out client alerts and blogging about the new requirements under EMIR.  We continue to help clients with their questions on this significant change to the EU regulatory landscape.

Two aspects of the new trade reporting regime in particular repay some close attention to avoid potential trip-ups.  First, the rules relating to what has been termed ‘backloading’, or, in other words, the requirement to transaction report historic trades.  After some uncertainty in the lead up to implementation, the requirements are now clearer.  Broadly, counterparties need to ensure that all historic trades that were either ‘live’ on 12 August 2012 (the date EMIR came into force), or subsequently became live prior to 12 February 2014 (the date the reporting requirements came into force), are reported.  For these trades, the deadline for reporting will range from just one day to a period of three years after the reporting obligations became effective, depending on the date of the trade and, if applicable, its termination date.  Our client alert sets out these timeframes in more detail.

Continue Reading Back(loading) to the Future – the Nuances of EMIR Transaction Reporting Requirements