Ernst & Young ("E&Y") has settled the Akai Holdings ("Akai") case with Akai’s liquidator, Borrelli Walsh. In this case, E&Y was accused of negligence for failing to avert Akai’s collapse in 2004.

E&Y had been Akai’s auditor prior to the collapse, which remains Hong Kong’s biggest ever insolvency. The terms of the settlement are confidential.

On 24 September 2009, the South China Morning Post reported that new evidence had come to light which suggested that E&Y’s staff had tampered with or faked hundreds of documents relating to its audit of Akai.

The UK Government has announced a consultation on proposals to strengthen the administration regime for insurers, in particular to improve the protection and payment of benefits for persons insured with companies facing financial difficulties and addressing gaps in the administration regime for insurers as compared with the liquidation regime. The proposals include:

1. applying to administration the existing rules for valuing insurance contracts in liquidation; and

2. revising the objectives of administration in insurance company cases by:

In Clydesdale Financial Services Ltd and others v Robert Smailes and others [2009] EWHC 3190 (Ch), the principal issues before the Court were whether the third claimant, Focus Insurance Company Ltd (Focus), had a real prospect of success in its claims to be, first, a creditor (under the Insolvency Act 1986) of the fifth defendant, Alexander Samuel LLP (LLP) in respect of unpaid premiums and, second, a "victim" under ss.423-425 of the Insolvency Act 1986 of the sale of LLP's business to Jiva Solicitors LLP (Jiva) effected around the same time as it went into administration.

In a judgment issued on 15 December in the English High Court (Lehman Brothers International (Europe)(in administration) v CRC Credit Fund Limited & Ors [2009] EWHC 3228), and based on assumed facts presented to him, Mr Justice Briggs described the failure by LBIE to protect client monies from the impact of insolvency as "truly spectacular" and involving "shocking underperformance".

In a judgment handed down last week, the Court of Appeal upheld the decision of Mr Justice Blackburne (previously reported here) that the English courts have no jurisdiction to sanction the proposed scheme of arrangement for Lehman Brothers International Europe (LBIE) insofar as it purports to extinguish rights of beneficiaries under trusts.

The administrators of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) have been intending to propose a scheme of arrangement under the English Companies Act to enable them to distribute several billions of dollars of assets held on trust by the company in the face of difficulties in establishing who was entitled to the trust assets; in particular, they had not received responses from all potentially interested clients, could not rely on the accuracy of the company's records and had not received all the information requested from sub-custodians and other intermediaries.

InDornoch Ltd & Ors v Westminster International & Ors [2009] EWHC 1782 (Admiralty) Mr Justice Tomlinson held that the sale by Westminster International (Westminster) of the wreck of a vessel, the Fariway for the sum of 1000 Euros to a related company was a transaction at an undervalue under s423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (which, in basic terms, provides that certain disposals made to connected persons for a value less than a fair value may be set aside by the court).

In Josef Syska (Administrator of Elektrim SA (in bankruptcy) and Elektrim SA (in bankruptcy) v Vivendi Universal SA & Others [2009] EWCA Civ 677 the main question to be decided by the Court of Appeal was whether, when an arbitration is proceeding in one Member State of the European Union, in this case the UK, and one of the parties to the arbitration becomes insolvent in another Member State, in this case Poland, the consequences of that insolvency, in so far as they affect the arbitration, are to be determined by the law of the Member State where the insolvency procee

The US District Court for the District of Connecticut recently dismissed a customer suit against an insurer, based upon its determination that all of the underlying claims were excluded by the policy’s Insolvency Exclusion.1 Associated Community Bancorp, Inc., et al. v. The Travelers Companies, Inc., et al.

A federal judge has ruled that directors and officers of a company in bankruptcy proceedings may continue to access an eroding liability policy to cover their defense costs. The court based its decision on a close examination of the policy language, and alternatively held that the individual directors and officers had shown they were entitled to relief from the automatic stay. In re: Downey Financial Corp., No. 08-bk-13041 (CSS) (Bankr.D.Del. May 7, 2010).