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.
Find up-to-date guidance on points of law and then easily pull up sources to support your advice with Lexis PSL
Check out our straightforward definitions of common legal terms.
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Access our unrivalled global news content, business information and analytics solutions
Insurance, risk and compliance intelligence using big data, proprietary linking and advanced analytics.
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
Discuss the latest legal developments, ask questions, and share best practice with other LexisPSL subscribers
The High Court decision in Landesbank Hessen-Thüringen Girozentrale v Bayerische Landesbank London Branch (a dispute arising out of the payment waterfall in a facility agreement) is a good reminder of the need to pay attention to the drafting of agreements in which one party plays multiple roles and of the need to think carefully about where each creditor is intended to rank in the payment waterfall.
The claim arose out of a facility agreement in respect of a loan facility for the purchase of 30 St Mary Axe in London (better known as 'the Gherkin') by the borrowers from Swiss Re.
Both the claimants, Landesbank Hessen-Thüringen Girozentrale (Landesbank) and other banks, and the defendant, Bayerische Landesbank London Branch (BLB) were lenders under the facility agreement.
The borrowers were various entities representing a joint venture between IVG Immobilien, a German real estate group and Evans Randall, a UK investment banking and private equity group.
Prior to syndication of the loan in July 2007, BLB was the only lender. BLB was also party to the facility agreement in various other capacities--namely, as arranger, as facility agent and as security agent. The terms of the facility agreement drew a clear distinction between these various different capacities in which BLB was acting.
Landesbank and the other claimant banks became lenders under the facility agreement on syndication in July 2007.
The facility agreement required the borrowers to enter into a series of interest rate swaps (the Hedging Agreements) to manage interest rate risk during the term of the loan with a 'Hedging Lender' defined as BLB 'or any other Lender which became a Hedging Lender'. Although BLB as Hedging Lender was not a separate party to the facility agreement, various parts of the facility agreement recognised that BLB was also acting in the capacity of Hedging Lender.
The borrowers and BLB entered into six Hedging Agreements which incorporated the terms of the ISDA Master Agreement.
At the date of the court proceedings, the borrowers were significantly out of the money under the Hedging Agreements to the extent that if early termination occurred, the borrowers would be liable to pay the Hedging Lender in the region of £138m as break gains.
As a result of financial difficulties encountered by the borrowers, the lenders were called upon to consider various restructuring and enforcement options, some of which might have involved early termination of the Hedging Agreements.
The dispute arose from the manner in which BLB in its capacity as Facility Agent would be required to distribute sums which might be paid by the borrowers pursuant to their liability under the Hedging Agreements in circumstances where it was likely that the sums received would be less than the amount the borrowers were liable to pay.
In essence, the case turned on the interpretation of the payment waterfall in the facility agreement.
The payment waterfall in the facility agreement provided that:
'If any amount paid or recovered in relation to the liabilities of an Obligor under any Finance Document is less than the amount then due, the Facility Agent shall apply that amount against amounts outstanding under the Finance Documents in the following order:
(a) first, to any unpaid fees and reimbursement of unpaid expenses or costs (including break costs and hedging break costs) of the Facility Agent;
(b) second, to any unpaid fees and reimbursement of unpaid expenses of the Lenders;
(c) third, to unpaid interest;
(d) fourth, to unpaid principal; and
(e) fifth, to other amounts due under the Finance Documents.
In each case (other than (a)), pro rata to the outstanding amounts owing to the relevant Finance Parties under the Finance Documents taking into account any applications under this clause 9.7. Any such application by the Facility Agent will override any appropriation made by an Obligor.'
The dispute concerned the interpretation of limb (a) of the clause and the penultimate sentence in it (words in bold).
The claimants sued BLB in its capacity as Facility Agent and in its capacity as Hedging Lender. Despite being one corporate entity, BLB was represented separately in the two capacities in which it was sued. In its capacity as Facility Agent, its solicitors indicated that it took a neutral stance so it was not represented at trial. BLB's participation in the trial was in its capacity as Hedging Lender.
BLB had entered into various market hedging arrangements to manage its risk exposure under the Hedging Agreements. It argued that 'hedging break costs' in limb (a) of the payment waterfall encompassed the costs and expenses which it would incur if it had to restructure or rebalance those market hedging arrangements as a result of early termination of the Hedging Agreements.
BLB based this argument on the proposition that, as Hedging Lender, it had a risk exposure under the Hedging Agreements (unlike any other lender) which it had to manage with its own market hedging arrangements so it was commercially sensible and reasonable that any sums paid by the borrowers or the guarantors upon which there was a shortfall (particularly any sum paid upon early termination of the Hedging Agreements) should be paid over to BLB as Hedging Lender in priority to the other lenders without BLB as Facility Agent having to pro-rate any such payment with the other lenders.
BLB also argued that the reference to 'the Facility Agent' in limb (a) of the payment waterfall was shorthand for BLB generally (including in its capacity as Hedging Lender) and was not limited to BLB in its capacity as facility agent. This was for two reasons:
The practical effect of this construction (given how much principal and interest was outstanding under the loan) would be that BLB recovered nothing in respect of the hedging break costs it would incur.
Landesbank argued that the words 'the Facility Agent' in limb (a) of the payment waterfall denoted BLB acting in its capacity as Facility Agent and not in any other capacity, whether as Hedging Lender or otherwise.
It argued that this was clear from the parties clause in the facility agreement in which BLB was described in its separate capacities including, in one, 'in its capacity as facility agent for the Lenders'. It also argued that there were a number of other places in the facility agreement where the drafting distinguished between the different capacities and roles of 'Facility Agent', 'Security Agent', 'Hedging Lender' and 'Lender' even though at the time the agreement was made, BLB fulfilled all of those roles.
One particular example of this was in a clause dealing with withdrawals from certain accounts which referred to payments being made by the Facility Agent from those accounts, including of 'break gains payable to the Hedging Lender'. Landesbank argued that in this clause 'Facility Agent' could not also encompass 'Hedging Lender' given that the two capacities were expressly distinguished.
Landesbank also argued that if 'the Facility Agent' in limb (a) of the payment waterfall was shorthand for BLB generally then it must also encompass BLB in all of its other capacities, including as Lender. This would mean that BLB had priority over all of the other Lenders as regards any of its fees and expenses as Lender. Landesbank argued that this construction was inconsistent with the other limbs of the payment waterfall--particularly limb (b) and the penultimate sentence of the clause which deals with 'other outstanding amounts' pro rata among the Lenders.
The High Court found in favour of Landesbank and the other claimants.
In relation to the drafting of the facility agreement, the court noted that:
The court also noted that limb (a) of the payment waterfall was concerned with giving priority to the reimbursement of the fees, costs and expenses incurred by the Facility Agent in carrying out its role as agent of the Lenders. It made 'perfect commercial sense' that the Facility Agent should recover such amounts in priority to the other Lenders, without having to pro-rate them (as under the other limbs of the payment waterfall) because it had acted as the Lenders' agent and the Lenders had undertaken to indemnify the Facility Agent for those amounts.
Unfortunately for BLB, the court found that limb (a) of the payment waterfall had a 'clear meaning and effect'--if there was a shortfall in the amount paid by or recovered from the borrowers, the Facility Agent would be obliged to apply that amount to unpaid interest and principal due to the Lenders under the facility agreement in priority to sums due to the Hedging Lender under the Hedging Agreements or costs and expenses incurred by the Hedging Lender in relation to its market hedging arrangements.
This case does not tell us anything new about the role of facility agents or the operation of payment waterfalls but it is a good reminder of the need to pay attention to the drafting of agreements in which one party plays multiple roles.
It also serves as a reminder that where a transaction involves hedging arrangements, it is good practice to clarify early on where payments relating to the hedging will rank in the payment waterfall, before or on early termination. The Loan Market Association (LMA) intercreditor agreement for leveraged finance transactions contains provisions which deal with hedging counterparties. The intercreditor agreement is available to LMA members on the documentation section of the LMA website (subscription required for full access).
First published on Lexis®PSL Banking and Finance. Click here for a free trial.
Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK
* denotes a required field
0330 161 1234