"The obvious is always least understood"?

"The obvious is always least understood"

I remember the Lehman Brothers collapse in September 2008, with headlines like the above 10 years ago today. There was an enormous amount of energy being expended at the top levels of Government and banking, all designed to stop the finance and credit pipes from icing up and causing a credit crisis worldwide.

I had no connection to it until a couple of months later, when a mortgage originator which was in the 'low-doc' space contacted me for advice. Their loan funds were sourced originally from lenders in the USA. The problem was that their commission payments from overseas funds had shrivelled, then suddenly stopped. On examination, there was an extraordinary cascading fountain of commissions which had 12 or so levels from its origination to the point where the loan settled to a borrower. When the original source of commissions dried up, each level was not only owed money, but also owed commission to the level beneath it. Obviously, that is a big problem for each level and for the commission structure as a whole.

However, as more clients in the financial services area came in from lower down the fountain levels, it became clear that some of the commission agreements with their agents did not make payment contingent on first receiving the upstream commission. The only event which determined whether the commission was payable was whether the loan was still in existence with the borrower. In many cases the loans were still in place and had not been refinanced. That meant commissions were due to be paid to the lower level when no funds had been paid to the level above.

It's the sort of fundamental commercial issue which makes you think that maybe that the person who photocopied the agreement missed the vital page. But no, they were copied well. No pages were missing.

The thought that the upstream commission may not be paid had simply not occurred to the lawyers drafting the agreements. This lack of foresight was not limited to one firm - multiple firms missed it.

It was probably only the fact that nearly everyone ran out of money and that there were many bigger issues from the collapses generally that prevented negligence claims for this drafting being pursued.



要查看或添加评论,请登录

Brendan Swift的更多文章

  • Best headphones for working remotely?

    Best headphones for working remotely?

    Having spoken to some colleagues who are new to remote work despairing of headset quality, I thought I would pass on my…

    4 条评论
  • Multiple monitors - a lowdown

    Multiple monitors - a lowdown

    It's been years in the making but I have arrived at the perfect work monitor configuration for efficient legal work! My…

    3 条评论
  • Calling a Federal election - the detail

    Calling a Federal election - the detail

    I'm appreciating for the first time the finely tuned legal machinery that operates to bring about a Federal election -…

    1 条评论
  • Dummy directors - a problem for over 2,000 years

    Dummy directors - a problem for over 2,000 years

    Whilst the appointment of “dummy directors” to a corporation to avoid liability is a hot issue in Australia (Plutus…

  • Altus Alumni in India

    Altus Alumni in India

    Update for those who know the tenacious Christine Lim, who has worked with us as a lawyer for the last 5 years…

  • This post will date very quickly...

    This post will date very quickly...

    I've had two electronic trials recently - one in the County Court, the other in the Supreme Court. The time saving in…

    3 条评论
  • A Frederick Forsyth thriller for lawyers

    A Frederick Forsyth thriller for lawyers

    I was looking at a pleading which claimed breaches of fiduciary and statutory duties in a Victorian case, and read the…

  • Principle versus pragmatism

    Principle versus pragmatism

    On the rear of the first banknote issued in Australia in 1817 was printed the following: “Let us possess the public…

社区洞察

其他会员也浏览了