The Supreme Court decides how client moneys are to be allocated in the Lehman estate, which has far-reaching implications for distributions in other financial collapses.

The Supreme Court has recently handed down a decision in a contentious and difficult application in the Lehman administration, a decision which fundamentally affects the allocation of client moneys in the Lehman estate.

Gym chain Fitness First is the latest high street name to propose a company voluntary arrangement (CVA) to its creditors. The chain currently runs more than 140 clubs in the UK but the arrangement proposes that 67 will be transferred to other operators within six months. Landlords will be reviewing the terms of the proposed CVA carefully.

A CVA is an agreement reached by a corporate debtor with its unsecured creditors. It is generally seen as a quicker and less formal route out of trading difficulties than administration.

A facilitation payment to encourage creditors to vote through the restructuring proposals of creditors’ debts has been held by the High Court not to be an illegal bribe. The court had regard to the fact that the offer of payment was made openly to all relevant creditors, none of whom were prevented from voting on the proposal. As such, where a creditor consented and received the facilitation payment, this was not contrary to the pari passu principle.

The facts

There have been a number of first instance decisions concerning the construction and effect of Section 2 (a) (iii) of the ISDA Master Agreement. The problem has been the conflicts between the various judgments, and in particular, with respect to the interpretation and effect of Section 2 (a) (iii). This has led to uncertainly as to how the Section is intended to operate.

The Court has heard another case dealing with a defective appointment of administrators under paragraph 22 of Schedule B1 Insolvency Act 1986 (“Schedule B1”)¹. Following hot on the tail of a recent series of conflicting cases relating to defective appointments, the Court has held that:

It is looking increasingly likely that 2012 will be another difficult year for the automotive sector, leading to a decline, not only in vehicle sales, but also in goods and services supplied to the sector. As a result, businesses may experience cash flow problems and increased creditor pressure to pay invoices.

We previously reported on Raithatha v Williamson (4 April 2012) where the High Court held that a bankrupt’s right to draw a pension was subject to an income payments order (“IPO”) even if the individual had yet to draw his pension. This judgment represented a significant departure from previous practice under the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999 which protected future pension rights from IPOs and distinguished them from pensions in payment. It also effectively allowed a trustee in bankruptcy to compel a bankrupt to draw pension against his wishes.

A Ministry of Justice Report released in March 2012 has confirmed that the implementation of the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 2010 (the "Act") is to be delayed until 2013.

In our Law-Now of 4 April 2012 (click here for link), we reported on the decision of the court in the case of Leisure (Norwich) II Limited v Luminar Lava Ignite Limited (in administration).  The detailed judgment has now been released, setting out the rationale for the decision and summarising the position on rents in administration generally.

The legal position on this issue is now:

There have been rumours in the pensions industry for a while that the Bonas case was not in fact the first contribution notice (CN) case to be decided by the Regulator's Determination Panel (Panel).  In March 2012 these rumours proved to be true when the embargo in the case of the Desmond Pension Scheme was lifted and details were published for the first time.  This speedbrief considers the Panel's determination to impose contribution notices on two individuals (Mr Desmond and Mr Gordon) and the Upper Tribunal's decision on various preliminary iss