An English court yesterday provided a glimpse of the difference between the civil justice there and the American system as it relates to controversial business practices such as those that Enron Corporation practiced.
In this decision handed down by an English court yesterday, J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. won a lawsuit against a WestLB AG-led banking syndicate related to Morgan’s Enron financing in which the English judge ordered the WestLb syndicate to honor a $165 million letter of credit that the syndicate had previously refused to pay.
That’s the first big difference. In the United States, there is no way that a plaintiff in this lawsuit would not attempt to take advantage of the public bias against Enron by demanding a jury trial. In the English system, jury trials in lawsuits over complicated business transactions are rare.
The case involved Morgan’s involvement in an offshore financing vehicle called Mahonia Ltd. In a complex trading arrangement, Morgan provided money to Enron, which then returned the payments to Morgan in the form of contracts for the future delivery of gas. Those payments — known as “gas prepay contracts” — were paid through an offshore vehicle called Mahonia.
When Enron collapsed in late 2001, Morgan had to commence litigation to collect on its security for the Enron-related financing. WestLB was the leader of a banking syndicate that had posted a $165 million letter of credit, which is a common form of security in which the WestLB syndicate receives a fee for taking the risk of Enron’s insolvency in regard to the financing — i.e., WestLB agrees to pay Morgan $165 million and assume Morgan’s rights against Enron if Enron goes bust on the deal.
Taking advantage of the unprecedented public outcry over Enron’s business practices when Enron collapse, WestLB refused to honor the letter of credit, alleging that the transactions were part of a “fraudulent scheme” that essentially disguised Morgan’s loans to Enron. Given the due diligence that takes place on these types of transactions, WestLB’s claims bordered on the preposterous, but then trying to weasel out of an Enron-related obligation is fair game these days. Morgan sued WestLB, WestLB countersued, and the trial began in London’s High Court of Justice in January.
The London case was just the latest litigation for Morgan over the Mahonia deal. When it set up the deal with Enron, Morgan hedged its risk by arranging to have several insurance companies issue $935 million of surety bonds to ensure Morgan against the risk of Enron’s default on the deal. When Enron filed for bankruptcy protection, those insurers — just like the WestAB syndicate — refused to pay using the same argument that the deal was a fraud designed to disguise loans to Enron. That dispute ended up in a jury trial in federal district court in Manhattan. Immediately before the jury was about to render a verdict in the case in January 2003, Morgan and the insurers agreed to a settlement in which the insurers paid 60% of the costs relating to Enron’s default, leaving Morgan holding the bag for the balance (approximately $400 million).
In the English case, High Court Justice Jeremy Cooke on Tuesday ruled in favor of Morgan and Mahonia by concluding that Enron’s accounting for the transaction did not breach U.S. accounting and securities rules. He ordered the WestLB banking syndicate to pay on the letter of credit, plus interest and costs, which is what the WestLB syndicate would have normally done in the first place but for the public outcry over anything related to Enron.
There is no question in my mind that Morgan would have agreed to settle with the WestAB syndicate on the same terms that it settled with the insurers over the Mahonia deal if this dispute had been tried to a probably biased American jury rather than a dispassionate English judge. Thus, that change in venue just saved Morgan at least a cool $70 million.
The Mahonia-related trading arrangement has been the subject of extensive scrutiny in connection with Enron’s chapter 11 case and related litigation. Last year, Morgan and Citigroup entered into a settlement with the Securities and Exchange Commission and U.S. regulators in which they agreed to pay fines and penalties totaling about $300 million related to their involvement with Enron and Dynegy Inc., a Houston-based energy company that attempted to acquire Enron immediately before the commencement of the Enron chapter 11 case.