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.
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.
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
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.
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?