In The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v Amran Munir and others [2015], the directors and secretary of a company were sentenced by the High Court to a term of imprisonment for contempt of court.

Summary

Much time is spent by MLAs and Sponsors negotiating the list of unanimous lender decisions in a leveraged finance syndicated facilities agreement. The Sponsor will be concerned that its portfolio company should not find itself "held to ransom" on a waiver request by a dissenting minority lender. On the other hand, lenders require certain fundamental transaction terms to be entrenched so that key decisions cannot be taken without them. Commonly, changes which would increase the facilities, reduce the margin or extend the final repayment date will require the consent of all lenders.

On October 5, 2015, the chair of the Financial Stability Board, Mark Carney, wrote a letter to the G20 Financial Ministers and Central Bank Governors on the FSB’s progress on the financial reforms program.

FMLC has written two letters to Treasury regarding bank recovery and resolution:

Credit Today reports that recent statistics from the Accountant in Bankruptcy (AiB), the government agency that administers the insolvency regime in Scotland, have revealed that:

The High Court in London gave judgment on parts A and B of the Lehman Waterfall II Application on 31 July 2015.  The application is part of the ongoing dispute as to the distribution of the estimated surplus of more than £7 billion in the main Lehman operating company in Europe, Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (LBIE).

Following on from our earlier advice on enforcing money judgments, Walker Morris’ banking litigators answer some more frequently asked questions.

Client Question 3

I have heard that I can enforce a money judgment via a third party debt order or an attachment of earnings.  What are these and what are the advantages/disadvantages?

Walker Morris Answer

On 31 July 2015, the English High Court delivered its judgments in the ‘Waterfall IIA’ and ‘Waterfall IIB’ cases. The decisions are important to stakeholders in determining key questions about how, following payment in 2014 of all the provable claims, the estimated £7.39-billion surplus (the ‘Surplus’) in Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (in administration) (‘LBIE’) will be shared amongst them. For others, the decisions may be of general interest in probing some rarely aired legal issues relating to the lower levels of the insolvency payment waterfall.

The recent appeal to the High Court in Woolsey v Payne [2015] EWHC 968 (Ch), from the Chief Registrar in insolvency proceedings, considered the application of sections 16B and 74(1)(a) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, which relate to the enforceability of loans made for business purposes and/or in the course of a business.

The Court of Appeal in London today gave judgment in the Waterfall I Appeal, a dispute as to the distribution of the estimated £7 billion surplus of assets in the main Lehman operating company in Europe, Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (LBIE).

LBIE entered administration on 15 September 2008 and has now paid its unsecured creditors 100p for every £1 owed.  The Waterfall I Appeal addressed some of the key issues as to who should receive the surplus, which we discuss below.

Currency Conversion Claims