Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
With over 30 practice areas, we have all bases covered. Find out how we can help
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Regulatory, business information and analytics solutions that help professionals make better decisions
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Printer Friendly Version
How did the court approach the question of whether a capital disqualification event had occurred so as to allow the early redemption of convertible securities? Laura Davis, associate at DAC Beachcroft, says the court’s focus in BNY Mellon v LBG Capital was on bringing commercial sense to the contract.
BNY Mellon Corporate Ltd v LBG Capital No. 1 plc and another  EWCA Civ 1257,  All ER (D) 112 (Dec)
The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the defendant issuers’ appeal, granted a declaration that a ‘Capital Disqualification Event’ (CDE) had occurred, thereby entitling the issuers to redeem enhanced capital notes in accordance with their terms.
This case relates to £3.3bn of enhanced capital notes (ECNs) issued by Lloyds Bank subsidiaries (LBG) in 2009. The ECNs were designed to increase Lloyds’ core tier 1 capital (CT1 Capital) after the Financial Services Authority (FSA) found that it had a shortfall.
The ECNs would convert to CT1 Capital only if the bank’s capital position deteriorated below requisite levels. They had maturity dates from 2019–2032 and a very high interest rate. The trust deed constituting them allowed for early redemption on a CDE. The definition of a CDE (the CDE definition) included a situation where the ECNs ceased to be ‘taken into account’ for the purposes of a stress test.
In carrying out a stress test in December 2014 (the December stress test), the Prudential Regulation Authority did not take the ECNs into account. LBG announced that a CDE had occurred and it intended to redeem them. BNY Mellon, the trustee of the ECNs, issued proceedings to prevent an early redemption.
In June 2015 the High Court found that no CDE had occurred. LBG appealed.
The primary legal issues on appeal were:
The preliminary issue arose because the December stress test was in respect of Common Equity Tier 1 Capital, whereas the CDE definition referred to stress tests in respect of Consolidated CT1 Capital only. By the time of the December stress test, due to regulatory changes, CT1 Capital was a historical concept. A literal reading would mean that, for all practical purposes, the CDE definition would never be met. The court therefore considered whether the wording of the definition constituted an obvious mistake which it was appropriate to correct by interpretation.
As to the main construction issue, at first instance it had been common ground that the ECNs were not taken into account in the December stress test because LBG’s capital position was strong enough for it to pass the test without them. The High Court held that the CDE definition was not aimed at that situation. Rather, it envisaged circumstances where ECNs were no longer taken into account in stress testing in general. LBG appealed this decision, making the arguments below.
On the preliminary issue, LBG argued that there had been an obvious mistake in the drafting of the CDE definition, which should be corrected to avoid an interpretation that did not make commercial sense. BNY Mellon submitted that the mistake would not have been obvious to individual holders of the ECNs (many of whom were retail investors), so the court should not correct it.
BNY Mellon’s position on the main construction issue was that, as held at first instance, a CDE could only occur where the use of ECNs in the stress test was disallowed in principle. LBG argued that there would be a CDE where, because of changes to regulatory capital requirements, the ECNs no longer assisted LBG to remain above minimum ratio requirements, even if there had been no ‘disallowance in principle’. Since the ECNs were first issued, their conversion trigger point had fallen below the regulatory minimum ratio. This meant that they could not assist LBG in meeting capital requirements, were not taken into account in the December stress test and would not be taken into account in future stress tests.
The judge held that the reference to CT1 Capital in the CDE definition was an obvious mistake which could be corrected as a matter of interpretation, as discussed further in the next question.
LBG’s appeal was allowed as regards the main construction issue. The judge held that the ECNs would cease to be ‘taken into account’ for the purpose of the CDE definition if they were no longer capable of contributing to LBG’s ability to meet the stress test’s requirements. Changes in the regulatory regime meant this was the case. A CDE had occurred and the ECNs could be redeemed.
In finding that it was appropriate to correct the mistake, the court relied on (i) the obvious nature of the mistake, and (ii) the fact that the reasonable addressee of the notes would have known what the parties intended:
There was no dispute regarding the legal principles to be applied to the construction of the CDE definition. The judge referred to Lord Hoffman’s statement in Chartbrook Ltd v Persimmon Homes Ltd  UKHL 38,  4 All ER 677:
‘All that is required is that it should be clear that something has gone wrong with the language and that it should be clear what a reasonable person would have understood the parties to have meant.’
This decision is an important demonstration of the difficulties that can arise in interpreting complex financial documentation, even where legal principles are undisputed.
The detail of this case relates to a very specific type of financial instrument, and there are limited practical lessons of general application to be taken away. However, the court’s approach to the issue of contractual interpretation is of interest as it demonstrated very clearly that it was less interested in the strict technicalities of drafting and more interested in a purposive approach bringing commercial sense to the contract.
The court’s finding in respect of the reasonable addressee’s understanding of the ECNs is also of practical interest. The court was unsympathetic to retail investors arguing that they would not have understood an obvious error in the drafting of documents in circumstances where clear warnings had been given, pre-investment, regarding the complexity of the transaction and the need for a detailed risk assessment to be carried out.
Interviewed by Anne Bruce.
The views expressed by our Legal Analysis interviewees are not necessarily those of the proprietor.
First published on LexisPSL Banking & Finance. Click here for a free trial.
0330 161 1234