UK Supreme Court decision confirms traditional rules on enforcement of all US judgments in England and reverses a significant liberalisation of cross-border bankruptcy law.

Singapore’s Court of Appeal has just laid down guidance on how professionals should approach their fee engagements with clients.¹ The judgment reveals an expectation of strict adherence to the terms of the letter of engagement. It also serves as an admonishment to retain a detailed inventory of the work done.

Background

Key changes proposed in the new Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Law affect involuntary petitions for bankruptcy, invalidations, trustees' avoidance powers, debtors' dissolution, and priority of claims.

Assenagon Asset Management S.A. v Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Limited (formerly Anglo Irish Bank Corporation Limited) [2012] EWHC 2090 (Ch)

The Government has announced that it will be delaying the proposed changes to Conditional Fee Arrangements ("CFA") and After the Event ("ATE") Insurance, in respect of insolvency proceedings, until 2015.

The Court’s unanimous decision in RadLAX Gateway Hotel LLC v. Amalgamated Banksettles dispute over the credit-bid right, retaining this important creditor protection.

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

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

Where does liability under a Pensions Regulator Contribution Notice rank in an Employer's insolvency?