Dive into the complexities of Sri Lanka's new Most Favored Creditor clause and its unexpected consequences for creditors. The discussion covers the intriguing intersection of tort law and sovereign debt, revealing how tortious interference can complicate restructuring efforts. Discover the amusingly dubbed 'funny clause' and the challenges it presents to bondholders regarding legal interpretations. Legal intricacies and historical comparisons highlight the evolving landscape of creditor rights, making for a captivating conversation that balances humor with serious legal analysis.
Sri Lanka's Most Favored Creditor clause represents a significant departure from traditional creditor agreements, raising legal and ethical concerns.
The complexities of tortious interference in sovereign debt highlight the uncertain ramifications for both participating and non-participating creditors during restructuring.
Deep dives
Most Favored Creditor Clause Overview
The most favored creditor clause in Sri Lanka's debt restructuring introduces a significant shift in how creditor agreements are typically structured. Traditionally, these clauses provide that creditors involved in a restructuring will not be offered better terms than those who participate, unless their own terms are similarly matched. However, the Sri Lankan clause appears to set a more aggressive standard, explicitly stating that the government will not offer any holdout creditors terms equivalent to or better than those presented to restructuring participants. This clause is controversial as it navigates the legal complexities of tortious interference, potentially putting the government at risk of legal challenges from non-participating creditors.
Legal Implications of Tortious Interference
The concept of tortious interference with contract, particularly in the context of sovereign debt, raises profound legal questions regarding the enforceability of the most favored creditor clause. Historically, parties concerned about tortious interference have shied away from language that could be construed as encouraging the breaching of contracts with holdout creditors. The discussions surrounding Sri Lanka's clause reveal a tension between the pursuit of collective creditor interests and the legal implications of potentially coercive tactics against holdouts. The participants in the podcast highlight that many legal professionals are uncertain about the nuances of tortious interference, showcasing a broader ambiguity in how these cases might be interpreted in court.
Risks and Legal Strategies
In examining the language of the restructuring invitation memorandum, concerns arise about the implications for non-participating creditors who could face adverse conditions based on the newly proposed terms. Clauses indicating that the government will not resume payments to holdout creditors unless they participate raise questions about the ethical and legal ramifications of such tactics. The conversation emphasizes the need for clear legal strategies that safeguard the interests of participating creditors while minimizing litigation risks. Furthermore, the lack of explicit risk disclosures in the memorandum regarding potential tortious interference claims suggests a precarious approach to restructuring that could leave all parties vulnerable.
Innovative Legal Provisions and Their Complexities
The introduction of innovative legal provisions, such as a clause allowing parties to switch the governing law from New York to English law, complicates the landscape of the restructuring process. While this provides a potential avenue for creditors to escape unfavorable legal interpretations, the mechanics of initiating such a switch raise questions about its practicality. The requirement for a threshold of 20% of holders to call for such a switch, along with the necessary consent solicitation, highlights the potential friction between creditor interests and issuer compliance. As the podcast discusses, the varying legal frameworks could either serve as a protective measure or create additional layers of complexity that may hinder effective enforcement of creditor rights.
Sri Lanka's New MFC Clause — Have "Contorts" Arrived in Sovereign Debt?
The doctrine of tortious interference with contracts is one of several that sits at the intersection of tort and contract law. These "contorts" confuse law students — lawyers and law professors too! — but can be important in practice. If not anticipated, they can create problems for unsuspecting parties and lawyers. Has Sri Lanka’s novel Most Favored Creditor clause created problems for creditors who participated in the country's restructuring? The MFC clause is confusing in places. It simultaneously seems to contemplate Sri Lanka striking a deal with holdouts (after litigation ends) and to quite aggressively try to prevent such a deal from happening. We discuss whether this creates risks for restructuring creditors and wonder why such an aggressive clause was viewed as necessary.
Producer: Leanna Doty
"Shades of Spring" Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 4.0 License
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Get the Snipd podcast app
Unlock the knowledge in podcasts with the podcast player of the future.
AI-powered podcast player
Listen to all your favourite podcasts with AI-powered features
Discover highlights
Listen to the best highlights from the podcasts you love and dive into the full episode
Save any moment
Hear something you like? Tap your headphones to save it with AI-generated key takeaways
Share & Export
Send highlights to Twitter, WhatsApp or export them to Notion, Readwise & more
AI-powered podcast player
Listen to all your favourite podcasts with AI-powered features
Discover highlights
Listen to the best highlights from the podcasts you love and dive into the full episode