Project Bank Accounts (PBA) are a payment mechanism based on ring-fenced bank accounts created to increase the security of contractors and sub-contractors in a building project. Their main benefits include security and speed of payment and protection of funds in potential insolvency. Sounds too good to be true? PBAs are becoming increasingly common, and with the Government commitment to use PBAs “unless there are compelling reasons not to do so”, their joint value in public sector contracts is expected to reach £4bn by this year.
Appeal Judges in the Court of Session yesterday issued a decision directing that the liquidators of Scottish Coal Company (SCC) cannot abandon sites or disclaim statutory licences imposing obligations on the company.
The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Jaffe v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd.,1 recently held that a U.S. bankruptcy court is not required under principles of comity to blindly apply foreign law to assets located in the U.S. of a foreign debtor whose principal insolvency proceeding is outside the U.S. Instead, bankruptcy courts must balance the interests of the affected U.S. parties with the those of the foreign debtor. In this case, the balancing required the application of U.S. law to the foreign debtor’s U.S. assets, not German law as applied in the foreign proceeding.
The Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York overseeing the Residential Capital (“ResCap”) cases issued an opinion on November 15, 2013 (the “Opinion”)2 allowing the unamortized interest associated with original issue discount (“OID”) that was generated in a fair market value exchange and claimed by ResCap’s junior secured noteholders (the “Holders”). While the OID ruling is only one component of the Opinion,3 it may have far reaching implications, as already evidenced in the pricing of other OID notes that were the product of fair market value exchanges.
The Court of Session has reiterated that balancing of accounts in bankruptcy may be relied upon by a defender in enforcement proceedings to successfully resist enforcement of an adjudicator's award. See Richard Heis & others as joint administrators of Connaught Partnerships Ltd (in administration) v. Perth & Kinross Council.
A recent overruling by the Supreme Court has revoked the priority status of pension schemes issued with a Financial Support Direction (FSD) or Contribution Notice (CN) by the Pensions Regulator, following an insolvency event. Whilst the decision largely affects companies operating within England and Wales, Scottish Courts are expected to be guided by the ruling.
The 2011 decision
Introduction
Judge James M. Peck of the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held, on June 25, 2013 (the “Lehman Op.”),1that claims under repurchase transactions (“Repos”) do not qualify as customer claims and therefore are not entitled to the priority or coverage provided for customers’ claims under the Securities Investor Protection Act (“SIPA”).
Introduction
Key Points
OSCR report issued following investigation of benefits to employee on wind-up