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

When a contractor pays money into court to discharge a lien of a sub-contractor, can that money only be used to discharge that lien holder’s claim?  Or is it available to pay the liens of all eventual lien holders?  In Canadian Western Bank v.

On February 2 and 9, 2012, the Ontario Superior Court released two decisions in the ongoing proceedings of Timminco Limited and Bécancour Silicon Inc. (together, the Timminco Entities) under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) that further develop the law regarding pension claim priorities in insolvency proceedings.

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 Supreme Court has announced it will hear the appeal in the high profile Indalex Ltd., Re. The appeal is of great interest to the commercial litigation, insolvency and pension bar. Its outcome will be closely watched and may have dramatic impact on Canadian corporate reorganizations.

Background

Today, the Supreme Court of Canada agreed to hear an appeal of the unanimous decision rendered last April by the Ontario Court of Appeal (OCA) in Re Indalex Limited (Indalex). According to many commentators, the Indalex case turns accepted law on the priority of debtor in possession (DIP) and working capital security on its head and introduces new concerns for employers about how to properly discharge their sometimes conflicting duties under corporate law and under pension law.

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

What role does business common sense play in the interpretation of commercial contracts? This issue was recently addressed by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in Rainy Sky S.A. v. Kookmin Bank. The answer: “where a term of a contract is open to more than one interpretation, it is generally appropriate to adopt the interpretation which is most consistent with business common sense”. Since there is currently some uncertainty in Canada on the point, Rainy Sky is an important case to consider.

Decision

In its recent decision in Belmont Park Investments PTY Ltd v BNY Corporate trustee Services Ltd and Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc,[1] the Supreme Court ruled in favour of investors, clarifying the limits of the anti-deprivation rule and holding that a commercially sensible transaction entered into in good faith and without the intention to evade insolvency laws should not infringe the anti-deprivation rule.

Background