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
Discuss the latest legal developments, ask questions, and share best practice with other LexisPSL subscribers
Joe Bannister, John Tillman and Margaret Kemp of Hogan Lovells examine the Lehman Brothers Europe Limited (LBEL) case and suggest the decision illustrates the courts are willing to adopt a pragmatic approach in assisting insolvency practitioners who need to act quickly in circumstances where their proposed actions are not expressly addressed in the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986).
Re Lehman Brothers Europe Ltd (in administration)  All ER (D) 44 (Aug),  EWHC 2031 (Ch)
In this important case, a proposal by joint administrators to appoint a director to a company already in administration (LBEL), in order to distribute surplus funds to its sole member (Lehman Brothers Holdings plc (LBH)), as opposed to a creditor, was held to be legally permissible, as well as pragmatic and beneficial.
What approach did the administrators take towards distributions to members?
The three main players in this decision are LBEL, its parent company, LBH, and an affiliated company, Lehman Brothers Limited (LBL), all in administration.
Having paid dividends to LBEL’s unsecured creditors of 100 pence in the pound, the administrators of LBEL (the administrators) held a considerable surplus. However, they were unable to distribute that surplus, partly because of an unresolved claim that LBL had made against LBEL’s estate. A settlement of the Waterfall III proceedings had been proposed. As part of that settlement LBL would withdraw its claim against LBEL and LBEL’s proof of debt submitted in LBL’s estate would be admitted in an agreed amount. That settlement would allow the administrators to proceed with the distribution of the surplus. Equally, the distribution of LBEL’s surplus was a key feature of the proposed settlement.
The administrators wanted to distribute the surplus (including any amount received from LBL) to make the following payments, as set out in para  of the judgment:
Access this article and thousands of others like it free by subscribing to our blog.
Read full article
Already a subscriber? Login
0330 161 1234