BNY Corporate Trustees Services Ltd v Eurosail-UK 2007-3BL plc
Decision by supreme court of UK / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about BNY Corporate Trustees Services Ltd v Eurosail-UK 2007-3BL plc?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
BNY Corporate Trustees Services Ltd v Eurosail-UK 2007-3BL plc [2013] UKSC 28 (often referred to as simply the Eurosail case) was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in relation to the proper interpretation of section 123(2) of the Insolvency Act 1986[1] (the so-called "balance-sheet test") as it had been applied in commercial bond documentation. The analysis and reasoning in the case are now commonly referred to as the Eurosail test.[2]
BNY Corporate Trustees Services Ltd v Eurosail-UK 2007-3BL plc | |
---|---|
Court | Supreme Court |
Decided | 9 May 2013 |
Citation(s) | [2013] 1 WLR 1408 [2013] Bus LR 715 [2013] 2 All ER (Comm) 531 [2013] UKSC 28 [2013] 1 BCLC 613 [2013] 3 All ER 271 [2013] BCC 397 |
Case history | |
Appealed from | [2011] EWCA Civ 227 (Court of Appeal) [2010] EWHC 2005 (Ch) (High Court) |
Court membership | |
Judge(s) sitting | Lord Hope Lord Walker Lord Mance Lord Sumption Lord Carnwath |
Case opinions | |
Lord Walker, Lord Hope | |
Keywords | |
Insolvency, balance-sheet test |
The ruling related to the insolvency of a special purpose company which had issued asset-backed securities as part of a securitisation. However, the collapse of Lehman Brothers meant that certain tranches of the securities were exposed because Lehman Brothers would not be able to meet its obligations under derivative contracts which had been entered into. Although strictly speaking the Court was expressing an opinion on the proper interpretation of an event of default in the bond documentation, the ruling is treated as an authoritative interpretation on section 123(2).[3]
The Supreme Court also rejected the "point of no return" test suggested by the Court of Appeal,[4] and also ruled on the limited efficacy of the post-enforcement call option ("PECO").[5]