Further to our update in November 2014, there has been a further decision in relation to Fairfield Sentry Limited, the largest feeder fund that invested into the fraudulent Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities.

The Court interpreted the terms of a Termination Agreement and found that the Applicant, Europa, was entitled to €1.3 million from the Defendant, AII, in relation to funds invested on Europa's behalf, which had been paid out and held by AII. As a matter of construction, it could not have been intended that AII should be left with sums owing to an investor following a Termination Agreement.

Simona Kornhaas v Thomas Dithmar (Case C-594/14)

The ECJ have ruled that a director of an English company that had entered into insolvency proceedings in Germany is liable to reimburse the company under German law for payments made after the company became insolvent.

Edgeworth Capital Luxembourg Sarl (2) Aabar Block Sarl V Glenn Maud [2015] EWHC 3464 (Comm)

The High Court in England has ruled on whether Spanish Law has the effect of extinguishing third party guarantees when the beneficiary of the guaranteed liabilities enters into insolvency proceedings in Spain.

The Pension Protection Fund (PPF) has issued a guidance note on Insolvency Practitioner remuneration which will apply where the insolvent company has a Defined Benefit Pension Scheme. The guidance note applies to pre and post appointment work.

The Guidance Note can be found here.

The Supreme Court has handed down its judgment in the case of The Trustees of Olympic Airlines SA Pension and Life Assurance Scheme –v- Olympic Airlines SA. Pitmans’ Trustee company, PTL, were the Appellants.

The question at issue was what connection must a foreign company, that has its Centre of Main Interests (COMI) in another EU country, have within the United Kingdom, to entitle an English Court to wind it up.

In the recent decision of Horton v Henry [2014] EWHC 4209 (Ch) the High Court held that a Bankrupt’s unexercised rights to draw his pension did not represent income to which the Bankrupt was entitled within the meaning of section 310(7) of the Insolvency Act 1986 and so refused to make an Income Payments Order. This contradicted the controversial decision in Raithatha v Williamson [2012] EWHC 909 (Ch) and has created uncertainty as to which is the correct position. The Horton case is being appealed.

The High Court has held that a bankrupt’s unexercised rights to draw his pension did not represent income to which the bankrupt was entitled and so refused to make an income payments order, contradicting the controversial decision in Raithatha v Williamson which held that a bankrupt’s right to draw income from a personal pension may be subject to an income payments order even if the individual has yet to draw his pension.

Horton v Henry [2014] EWHC 4209 (Ch)

Since the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999 (“1999 Act”), it has been understood that the rights of a bankrupt under a tax approved pension plan are excluded from the bankruptcy estate and do not vest in his Trustee in Bankruptcy.

That said, where a Bankrupt was already drawing an income from his pension, his Trustee could seek an Income Payments Order over that income.

The Court of Appeal has handed down an important judgment for landlords and insolvency practitioners, in the case of Jervis v Pillar Denton; re Games Station (“Game”).