The ongoing financial peril of Knight Capital provides an opportunity to reflect on steps investors should consider whenever a financial intermediary or counterparty encounters financial difficulties.
On July 9, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit significantly strengthened the potential ability of licensees to trademarks, international intellectual property, and other rights to continue to enjoy the benefits of their licenses despite a licensor’s bankruptcy.
Those thinking that the trials and tribulations of the recession may have passed them by and that, if all else failed, at least the pension was safe, may have to think again following two recent court decisions in which pensions came under attack from creditors and trustees in bankruptcy.
The vexed question of whether a future right to receive a pension can be attached to satisfy a judgment, or can be claimed by a trustee in bankruptcy, has long since troubled the courts.
An administrator who was sued in relation to contractual liabilities which he entered as administrator of a company was found to have no personal liability for those contracts or for the costs of the litigation.
In the recent case of Wright Hassall LLP v Morris1 the claimant advanced various arguments in an attempt to make the administrator personally liable for a costs order in litigation where the defendant companies were unable to pay. These arguments were rejected.
On May 29, 2012, in RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank, the United States Supreme Court unanimously held that a debtor may not confirm a chapter 11 plan of reorganization providing for the “free and clear” sale of a secured creditor’s collateral, without permitting the secured creditor to credit bid at the sale.
The High Court has held that where litigation is commenced against the administrator of a company, arising out of contractual obligations entered into in that capacity, he or she will not be personally liable, despite the insolvent company being unable to meet the resulting liability.(1)
The courts and FOS are now headed down very different paths in their approach to credit crunch losses suffered by clients of regulated firms. While FOS has all but abandoned the general law of causation in its approach to cases of consumer detriment, we have observed how the courts have held again and again that the general law of causation applies to mis-selling claims.
The Supreme Court yesterday ruled that client money held in un-segregated accounts should be treated the same as client money held in segregated accounts, enabling un-segregated account holders to share in the client money pool on the insolvency of a firm with whom the account is held.