In its recent decision in Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (in administration)¹  the Supreme Court resolves the uncertainty where a regulated firm does not properly segregate client monies. The decision has a number of practical implications, not only for the administration of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (LBIE) but also for the way client monies are held by institutions.  

Background

Many employers dread triggering debts under section 75 of the Pensions Act 1995 within their defined benefit pension scheme, but in some circumstances it simply cannot be avoided.  Once a section 75 debt has been triggered it is important that the debt is calculated properly.  The Actuary is required to calculate the difference between the value of the scheme's assets and the cost of purchasing annuities to secure all of the liabilities of the scheme.  But what if there is a delay in calculating the debt?  At which date is the Actuary required to ascertain the cost of bu

On March 13, 2012 the Queen of Hearts in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals showed no sympathy for the White Rabbit’s plight and denied a creditor’s appeal of an order disallowing its late filed proof of claim in the DHL Master Land Holding LLC bankruptcy case.¹

Bankruptcy Courts may be courts of equity, but a recent decision by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York holds that even equity can’t trump the plain words of a settlement agreement.

The game is tied with three seconds to play in regulation: an inbounds pass, one dribble—and a long shot at the buzzer. It’s the drama we love and expect this month, but whether the result is the thrill of victory or the agony of defeat depends not only on whether the shot goes in but also whether it leaves the shooter’s hands before the buzzer sounds.1 Analogous madness arose this March in a recent complaint filed against an ad hoc group of hedge fund noteholders (the “Noteholders”) in Motors Liquidation Company GUC Trust v.

Tronox Incorporated and certain affiliates (the “Debtors”) emerged from Chapter 11 in February 2011 armed with a new capital structure and operational game plan, but that’s yesterday’s news. The flavor of the month is last Friday’s decision by Justice Allan L.

In its recent decision in Re Kaupthing Singer and Friedlander^[1], the Supreme Court clarifies the interrelationship between the rule against double proof and the rule in Cherry v Boultbee. The Court considered in particular whether the rule in Cherry v Boultbee is (1) compatible with the principle against double proof, and (2) limited to seeking an indemnity in respect of sums actually paid.

Background

The worldwide press has been humming that General Motors has finally taken back the pole position from Toyota as the worldwide sales leader. In contrast, stories about the General Motors bankruptcy have mostly stalled since the automaker’s plan of liquidation took effect last March. Until now.

A recent decision by the Third Circuit in the Nortel Group bankruptcy reinforces the worldwide reach of the automatic stay and the narrow scope of the police power exception under section 362(b)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code.  In Nortel Networks, Inc. v. Trustee of Nortel Networks U.K. Pension Plan, No. 11-1895 (3d Cir. Dec. 29, 2011), the Third Circuit held that the automatic stay barred U.K. pension claimants from participating in U.K. proceedings meant to determine the debtors’ liability for their affiliate’s pension funding shortfalls.

In an Order issued yesterday by the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas in the Omega Navigation Enterprises, Inc. (Omega) chapter 11 cases, Judge Karen Brown has denied motions to dismiss or convert Omega’s chapter 11 cases or for relief from stay filed by Omega’s Senior Lenders and supported by Omega’s Junior Lenders and Unsecured Creditors’ Committee. In the view of Lloyd’s List, a leading industry publication: