Australia: The Courts flip-flopping (again) on the validity of flip clauses in insolvency proceedings

Last Updated: 5 September 2016
Article by Karen O'Flynn and Flora Innes

Judge Chapman's judgment is obviously a welcome development for participants in the structured capital markets, particularly those who transact regularly with US counterparties.

On 28 June 2016, the US Bankruptcy Court handed down an important judgment in Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc. v. Bank of America National Association (Case No. 10-3547), summarily dismissing claims of Lehman Brother Special Financing Inc. (LBSF), which sought to claw back collateral proceeds in respect of more than 40 series of collateralised debt obligations (CDOs). Those proceeds were distributed to noteholders in late 2008, following the collapse of Lehman Brothers.

In dismissing LBSF's complaints, Judge Chapman departed from a previous ruling of Judge Peck which found that "flip clauses" (ie. provisions in structured finance documents that reverse or "flip" the priority of payment obligations owed to swap counterparties on the one hand and noteholders on the other, following a specified event of default) were unenforceable ipso facto clauses as a matter of US law. In contrast, Judge Chapman ruled that not all flip clauses are ipso facto clauses; but, if they are, they are protected by the safe harbour provisions in the US Bankruptcy Code.

Litigation history

The validity of flip clauses has been the subject of much litigation in the context of Lehman Brothers' bankruptcy, and across different jurisdictions.

  • In 2009, in the case of BNY, the High Court of England and Wales and the UK Court of Appeal both found that, as a matter of English law, the flip clause in question was effective and did not offend the anti-deprivation rule.1
  • In January 2010, Judge Peck of the US Bankruptcy Court found to the contrary, ruling that the same flip clause modified the rights of LBSF (to termination payments), following the bankruptcy filing by Lehman Brothers Holding Inc. (LBHI) (the ultimate parent company of the Lehman Brothers group) on 15 September 2008; and, accordingly, it was an impermissible ipso facto clause in contravention of sections 365(e)(1) and 541(c)(1) of the Code. Although LBSF only filed for bankruptcy on 3 October 2008, Judge Peck was of the view that LBSF's filing and LBHI's filing ought to be treated as a "singular event" which took place on the earlier petition date of 15 September 2008. In addition, Judge Peck found that the safe harbour provisions in section 560 of the Code (which protect the liquidation, termination and acceleration of swap agreements) did not extend to protect the distribution of proceeds resulting from the liquidation of swap agreements.2
  • Judge Peck's decision in BNY was appealed, but the parties settled before the appeal was heard.
  • In July 2011, the UK Supreme Court upheld the lower English Court decisions and reaffirmed the effectiveness, at least under English law, of flip clauses used in structured finance transactions.3

  • Subsequent decisions of Judge Peck, for example, in Ballyrock4 (2011) and Michigan Housing5 (2013), affirmed his earlier rulings in BNY.

These conflicting decisions generated considerable uncertainty in the market over the enforceability of flip clauses.

In the insolvency context, parties involved in CDO transactions that were unwound in 2008 (including noteholders, issuers and trustees) were left with a significant exposure to claims from LBSF. Many were forced to litigate, mediate or otherwise resolve those claims with LBSF in the absence of any clear judicial guidance. It is estimated that, as a result of Judge Peck's ruling in 2010, LBSF was able to recoup hundreds of millions of dollar through settlements with noteholders and other interested parties.

Against the backdrop of this litigation history, Judge Chapman's ruling in June 2016 came as a welcomed development for many; but, arguably, it came six years too late.

The Adversary Proceeding

The Adversary Proceeding, in which Judge Chapman handed down her recent decision, is a defendant class action commenced by LBSF against 250 issuers, trustees and noteholders of 44 series of CDOs. The key allegations made by LBSF were that the flip clauses (or payment priority provisions) in the CDO transaction documents were unenforceable ipso facto clauses; accordingly, when Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy in 2008, the note trustees contravened the Code by complying with the flip clauses and distributing the proceeds of collateral underlying the CDOs to noteholders rather than to LBSF. On that basis (amongst others), LBSF claimed that those noteholders ought to disgorge the collateral proceeds they received (estimated at over USD 1 billion) and repay them to LBSF.

The Adversary Proceeding was commenced in September 2010 but was stayed, on multiple occasions, by the US Bankruptcy Court, which stay was only lifted in August 2014. In late 2015, certain defendants filed an omnibus motion to dismiss LBSF's claims.

Judge Chapman's decision

In granting the motion to dismiss, Judge Chapman found that:

  1. First, not all payment priority provisions are ipso facto clauses.
  2. noteholders) was fixed at the outset as the default option, and that default priority only "flipped" in favour of noteholder priority upon satisfaction of certain conditions (e.g. where LBSF's default triggered the early termination of the swap), these "Type 1" payment priority provisions were found to be ipso facto clauses, since they modified LBSF's right to receive termination payments, a which right was held by LBSF prior to its bankruptcy filing.

    On the other hand, "Type 2" payment priority provisions established no default priority position at the outset, but simply created a "toggle" between two potential payment waterfalls, one of which would become applicable upon early termination. As to which waterfall would apply, that depended entirely on the circumstance surrounding the early termination. As a result, prior to early termination, LBSF only held a contingent right to payment in one of those two payment waterfalls, and not a right to any senior priority position. "Type 2" clauses were therefore found not to be ipso facto clauses since they effected no modification of LBSF's rights.
  1. Secondly, even assuming the opposite conclusion (that is, if "Type 2" priority provisions ipso facto modified LBSF's rights), provided that the early termination of the relevant swaps occurred before the date of LBSF's bankruptcy petition, then any modifications of LBSF's rights would not contravene sections 365(e)(1), 541(c)(1) or 363(l) of the Code. In reaching this conclusion, Judge Chapman rejected the "singular event" theory articulated in BNY, and found that:
    • any modification of LBSF's rights occurred upon early termination of the swaps and not at the time the collateral proceeds were distributed; and
    • even if early termination and/or distribution of proceeds took place after LBHI's petition date (15 September 2008), so long as it occurred before LBSF's petition date (3 October 2008), any modification of LBSF's rights effected by the priority provisions would not have run afoul of the anti-ipso facto provisions because the modification would have been fully effective prior to "the commencement of the [debtor's] case".
  1. Lastly, and most importantly, Judge Chapman ruled that section 560 of the Code (also known as the safe harbour) protects the distributions by note trustees of collateral proceeds to noteholders, which were carried out as part of their exercise of the issuers' rights to terminate and liquidate the swaps with LBSF. This protection extends to both Type 1 and Type 2 priority provisions.6
  2. In overturning Judge Peck's ruling in BNY on this particular issue, Judge Chapman repeatedly noted that, consistent with Congress's intent in creating (and subsequently expanding) the safe harbour provisions to promote stability and efficiency of financial markets, those provisions are to be given a "broad and literal interpretation". On that approach, Judge Chapman rejected LBSF's argument that the word "liquidation" in section 560 ought to be limited to the termination of the swaps and no more. Rather, she found that the words "termination" and "liquidation" must be read to have distinct meanings and, in the present case, the "liquidation" of the swaps must therefore encompass both the liquidation of collateral as well as the distribution of its proceeds pursuant to the payment priority provisions.


Judge Chapman's judgment is obviously a welcome development for participants in the structured capital markets, particularly those who transact regularly with US counterparties.

For those who were caught up in the Lehman Brothers' collapse in 2008 (and are exposed to potential claims by LBSF), this latest decision goes some way towards dispelling the legal uncertainty that was created by Judge Peck's decisions over the last 6 years. However, LBSF will no doubt appeal Judge Chapman's decision and, in doing so, prolong the wait for a final resolution for all who are affected.

As for BNY and Ballyrock and many others with whom LBSF has already secured favourable settlements on the strength of Judge Peck's decisions, this latest attempt by Judge Chapman to "right the wrong" (made by her predecessor) is but too little, too late. What it also means is that there are now two inconsistent rulings in the same bankruptcy case relating to the same issues in dispute. This divergence in outcome is unfair, to say the least, and has implications for third parties both in and outside of the US.

The "flip clause" litigation (which arose in the context Lehman Brothers' bankruptcy) also highlights the importance of cross-border communication and cooperation between courts in different jurisdictions when dealing with the insolvency of multi-national corporate groups. Ultimately, where inter-court cooperation is lacking and the principle of comity is not observed, it is the creditors (wherever located) who suffer, whether by reason of protracted litigation, delays in distributions or substantial costs being thrown away as part of the process.


1 Perpetual Trustee Company Limited v BNY Corporate Trustee Services Limited & Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc. [2009] EWCA Civ 1160; [2009] EWCA Civ 1160.

2 Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc. v. BNY Corporate Trustee Services Inc., (Re: 09-01242 (JMP)), 25 January 2010.

3 Belmont Park Investments Pty Limited v BNY Corporate Trustee Services Limited and Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc [2011] UKSC 38.

4 Lehman Bros. Special Fin. Inc. v. Ballyrock ABS CDO 2007-1 Ltd. (In re Lehman Bros. Holdings Inc.), 452 B.R. 31 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2011) (JMP).

5 Michigan State Housing Dev. Auth. v. Lehman Bros. Special Fin. Inc. (In re Lehman Bros. Holdings Inc.), 502 B.R. 383 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2013) (JMP).Back to article

6 Section 560 of the Code relevantly provides that: "the exercise of any contractual right of any swap participant or financial participant to cause the liquidation, termination, or acceleration of one or more swap agreements... shall not be stayed, avoided, or otherwise limited by operation of any provision of [the Code].


Clayton Utz communications are intended to provide commentary and general information. They should not be relied upon as legal advice. Formal legal advice should be sought in particular transactions or on matters of interest arising from this bulletin. Persons listed may not be admitted in all states and territories.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.