There has been much commentary recently on the treatment by lenders of individuals and small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs). Indeed, the FCA has made its expectations very clear – that lenders should fully support those experiencing financial difficulty.
As a restructuring professional and insolvency practitioner, and a former regulator, I have some competing views and thoughts on what this means and whether it is the optimum approach in the longer term.
The court sanctioned one of two potential schemes of arrangement for Amigo Loans Ltd (Amigo) and approved a plan that provided for two possible outcomes.
Background
Amigo provided guarantor loans to customers with poor credit scores. Amigo owed customers and the Financial Ombudsman Service £375 million for customer complaints and was insolvent.
In its recent consultation (“Managing the failure of systematic Digital Settlement Asset (including stablecoin) firms”), the Government has proposed that one of two special administration regimes (SARs) which currently apply to certain financial institutions (the Financial Market Infrastructure Special Administration Regime (FMI SAR) or the Payment and E-Money Special Administ
Cryptoassets continue to be in the spotlight with prices no longer heading ‘to the moon’, the recent high-profile failure of an algorithmic stablecoin and the difficulties experienced by various service providers. This all forms the backdrop to the UK Government’s publication of proposals with respect to managing the failure of systemic digital settlement asset firms.
Overview
In 1907, Robert Baden-Powell, an English soldier, devised the Scout motto: Be Prepared. Upon hearing the Scout motto, someone asked Baden-Powell the inevitable follow-up question.
“Prepared for what?”
“Why, for any old thing,” he replied.
In Scouting for Boys (published in 1908), Baden-Powell wrote that to ‘Be Prepared’ means “you are always in a state of readiness in mind and body to do your duty.” More than a century later, preparedness is still a cornerstone of Scouting.
HERBERT SMITH FREEHILLS
Pension Disputes Bulletin
Welcome to the latest edition of our regular pension disputes bulletin. In these bulletins we report on key cases, Ombudsman decisions and regulatory activity and we highlight emerging risks for pension schemes, providers, sponsors, administrators and other service providers.
In a hurry? In a hurry? Read the `Risk warning', `Takeaways' and `Comment' boxes to find out the key risks, points to note and to read our observations on each case/ development.
MAY 2022
In Algeri, in the matter of WBHO Australia Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) [2022] FCA 169, the Federal Court heard the second application by the administrators who were seeking an extension to the convening period for the second meeting of creditors, which pursuant to section 439A(5) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Act) was set to expire on 24 March 2022.
In the matter of Carna Group Pty Ltd v The Griffin Coal Mining Company (No 6) [2021] FCA 1214, the Court held that Griffin Coal Mining Company (Griffin) was insolvent, without having to prove so under the section 95A Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act). This was in accordance with a contractual provision where it provided specific circumstances where insolvency could be proven and as such a breach had occurred and the contract could be terminated.
The Court of Appeal has held that the Electronic Money Regulations 2011 do not impose a statutory trust in respect of funds received from e-money holders (who nonetheless enjoy priority status in respect of their creditor claims), providing some much-needed clarity on this issue for e-money institutions and their clients.
A link to the judgment can be found here.
Background
In the recent Court of Appeal case of Re Ipagoo LLP, the court provided welcome clarity on the status of e-money holders’ claims under the Electronic Money Regulations 2011 (EMR). In brief, the Court of Appeal held that the EMR do not impose a statutory trust in respect of funds received from e-money holders. The court confirmed, however, that e-money holders will still enjoy priority status in respect of their e-money creditor claims (crucially) whether or not their funds have been duly segregated from the general pool of assets, as required under the EMR.