UK: Just When You Thought Deco-Ast Was Clear For Special Servicer Replacements

If you thought the wrangling over special servicer replacements was over following Richard Snowden QC's judgment in US Bank v Titan Europe 2007-1 (NHP) plc in April last year, think again.

Ever since Fitch issued their press release confirming that as a matter of policy it would not provide rating agency confirmations (RACs) in relation to the replacement of special servicers on EMEA CMBS transactions (covered in our blog "What the Fitch??!"), we've seen a number of tussles as parties have sought to grapple with impact of Fitch's policy change.

First, we had the three-part blockbuster 'Windermere XIV saga' Part 1, Part 2, Part 3 and then there was the 'Clash of the Titan 2007-1' trilogy Part 1Part 2Part 3, which many may have thought resolved the issue once and for all.

If you recall in US Bank v. Titan, Snowdon concluded that, on the facts of that particular case, Fitch's policy not to issue RACs should not prevent an otherwise valid replacement attempt, so long as the other requirements for replacement were satisfied.  This gave us a straight-forward roadmap for other special servicer replacements in the wake of Fitch's decision, right?!


Well, at least in relation to Deco 15 – Pan Europe 6.

Deco 15 – Pan Europe 6

In Deco 15 – Pan Europe 6, Cheyne Capital (Management) UK (LLP) was appointed Operating Adviser for the Controlling Class.  In an attempt to exercise its rights as Operating Adviser under the servicing agreement, Cheyne requested the Issuer and the Trustee to replace the existing special servicer (Hatfield Philips) with Solutus Advisors.

The provision for replacing the Issuer Special Servicer in the Deco 15 transaction provided that it was a pre-condition of the replacement that:

"the Issuer Servicer or, as the case may be, Issuer Special Servicer will have notified each of the Rating Agencies in writing of the identity of the successor Issuer Servicer or successor Issuer Special Servicer and the Rating Agencies have confirmed to the Issuer Security Trustee and the Note Trustee that the appointment     of the successor Issuer Servicer or Issuer Special Servicer will not result in an Adverse Rating Event, unless each class of Noteholders have approved the successor Issuer Servicer or successor Issuer Special Servicer, as applicable, by Extraordinary Resolution."

An "Adverse Rating Event" means "with respect to any Rating Agency, an event that would cause the downgrade, qualification or withdrawal of the then current ratings by such Rating Agency of any class of Notes".

Given Fitch's refusal to provide RACs on special servicer replacements and the decision in US Bank v Titan, the Trustee decided to seek directions from the court as to the interpretation of this provision.

The issue the court had to consider was:

"whether [the pre-conditions to replacing the special servicer in the servicing agreement] permits the replacement of the Issuer Special Servicer in in circumstances where a Rating Agency declines to say whether or not the appointment of the proposed successor Issuer Special Servicer would result in an Adverse Rating Event.  The issue arises because of the stance adopted by Fitch since 10 December 2012"


Cheyne argued that Fitch's refusal to provide RACs in respect of the replacement should not frustrate the replacement of a special servicer in this instance.  The Trustee advanced the alternative argument that the Rating Agencies must all have confirmed to the Trustee that the replacement of the Issuer Special Servicer will not result in an Adverse Rating Event, i.e. all Rating Agencies (including Fitch) must provide a rating agency confirmation, even where Fitch have a policy of not providing RACs.  The judge confirmed that the Trustee's interpretation of the documents was the correct one.

In coming to his decision, the judge split the relevant replacement provision above into two limbs:

  1. termination of the appointment of the Issuer Servicer or Issuer Special Servicer cannot take effect unless "the Rating Agencies have confirmed to the Issuer Security Trustee and the Note Trustee that the appointment of the successor Issuer Servicer or Issuer Special Servicer will not result in an Adverse Rating Event"; and
  2. an exception to the need to obtain confirmations from the Rating Agencies where "each class of Noteholders have approved the successor Issuer Servicer or successor Issuer Special Servicer, as applicable by Extraordinary Resolution"

It was decided that the interpretation of the Trustee corresponds with the natural meaning of the words in the first limb and that the second limb provides a partial answer to the problem which arises as a result of Fitch's policy.

Unsurprisingly Cheyne relied on the US Bank v Titan decision for a number their arguments in the Deco application.  However, the judge ruled that there are material differences in the relevant replacement provisions and that therefore the reasoning in the Titan decision is not applicable to the current case.

"Cheyne relies upon the decision of Mr Snowden with respect to a similar issue in US Bank v Titan as supporting its interpretation. The Trustee submits that the present case is distinguishable from US Bank v Titan because there are material differences in the relevant documents, and hence Mr Snowden's reasoning is inapplicable. I agree with the Trustee on this point. Importantly, in that case, the clause corresponding to clause 26.4(b) did not include the second limb, and the clause corresponding to clause 29.13 did not differentiate between Moody's and the other two Rating Agencies. There were also other less significant differences, such as the fact that the clause corresponding to clause 26.3 did not include the proviso. As I read Mr Snowden's judgment at [99], his reasoning was driven by two key points: first, the wording of the clause corresponding to clause 29.13; and secondly the commercial absurdity of the contrary interpretation. Neither point applies here. Clause 29.13 is limited to Moody's, and the argument on commercial absurdity is much less compelling due to the presence of the second limb in clause 26.4(b)."

Given we've been following both these transactions very closely, we thought we'd give you a closer look at some of the main differences that were referred to in the Deco judgment:

Provision Titan Europe 2007-1 (NHP) Deco 15 – Pan Europe 6 Comments
Replacement Pre-condition "the Servicer or Special Servicer or the Note Trustee shall have notified each of the Rating Agencies in writing of the identity of the successor Servicer or Special Servicer and the Rating Agencies shall have confirmed that the appointment of the successor Servicer or Special Servicer, as applicable, will not result in an Adverse Rating Event;" "the Issuer Servicer or, as the case may be, Issuer Special Servicer will have notified each of the Rating Agencies in writing of the identity of the successor Issuer Servicer or successor Issuer Special Servicer and the Rating Agencies have confirmed to the Issuer Security Trustee and the Note Trustee that the appointment of the successor Issuer Servicer or Issuer Special Servicer will not result in an Adverse Rating Event, unless each class of Noteholders have approved the successor Issuer Servicer or successor Issuer Special Servicer, as applicable, by Extraordinary Resolution." The striking difference here is that Deco 15 includes the proviso "unless each class of Noteholders have approved the successor Issuer Servicer or successor Issuer Special Servicer, as applicable, by Extraordinary Resolution."This proviso offered an alternative mechanism whereby the special servicer could still be replaced even where Fitch has refused to provide RACs as a matter of policy.In US Bank v Titan, Snowden decided that it would be commercially absurd if the special servicer could not even resign if Fitch failed to provide a RAC. However, the same cannot be said in Deco given the proviso provides an alternative method for replacement in the absence of a Fitch RAC.
What if a Rating Agency fails to provide a RAC or respond? (Clause 29.13) "...if any provision of this Agreement requires the Servicer or Special Servicer to obtain a written confirmation from the Rating Agencies in respect of a particular matter but a Rating Agency declines to issue such a confirmation, then the relevant provision shall be read and construed as though written confirmation from the Rating Agency declining to issue the confirmation was not required and the Servicer or the Special Servicer, as applicable, may nonetheless proceed with the matter in question, provided it determines in its sole discretion that it would be consistent with the Servicing Standard to do so." "In the event that Moody's fails to respond to such request for confirmation within 30 days (or such earlier date as the Issuer Servicer or the Issuer Special Servicer, as applicable, has determined is appropriate under the circumstances in accordance with the Servicing Standard), the Issuer Servicer or the Issuer Special Servicer will not be required to obtain such confirmation from Moody's." In Titan, the provision covers a situation where any of the Rating Agencies declines to issue a confirmation. However, in Deco, the provision relates only to where Moody's had not responded and so did not include the current situation with Fitch.

Recent case law has arguably suggested that the Court is increasingly alive to the commercial context or purpose of finance transactions, which fall into dispute, and has, on occasion, been willing to depart from a literal interpretation of the clauses in dispute.  However, what is different in this case is that the Court accepted the words in the replacement provision on their face with their natural meaning and determined that it was clear that, as a result of the proviso, such a reading would not produce a commercially unreasonable result.

Given the differences in the language used in EMEA CMBS, and the contrasting judgments in Deco 15 and US Bank v Titan, we should be wary of adopting a broad brush approach to special servicer replacements and in each case trustees, issuers and special servicers should consider the provisions carefully to determine whether or not the situation corresponds more to Titan or to Deco or includes factors that have yet to be considered by the court.  This is particularly so given the statement by The Hon Mr Justice Arnold that:

"Cheyne contends that it is absurd to interpret clause 26.4(b) as requiring confirmation to be obtained from a Rating Agency that has adopted a policy of not giving such confirmations.  As indicated above, I agree that this does not appear sensible.  If it were not for the get-out provided by the second limb of clause 26.4(b) and the presence of clause 29.13, I might have taken the view this could not have been intended, and therefore the first limb should be interpreted in the manner contended by Cheyne".

Leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal has been granted to Cheyne as well so there may yet be more to come.  Watch this space.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

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.

In association with
Related Video
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.