In Lehman Brothers International (Europe)(in administration) v CRC Credit Fund Limited & Ors [2010] EWCA Civ 917 the Court of Appeal considered the first instance judgment of Mr Justice Briggs on the operation of the Client Money Rules (CASS) in relation to the insolvency of Lehman Brothers International (Europe)(LBIE).

On August 2, the English Court of Appeal handed down its judgment on the client money directions application made in the Administration of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (LBIE). The Court of Appeal overturned Mr. Justice Briggs’ High Court decision in part, holding unanimously that:

The U.K. Court of Appeal (the “Court of Appeal”) on Aug. 2, 2010, handed down a long-awaited decision regarding an appeal related to the scope of, and eligibility to receive distributions from, the Lehman Brothers Europe (International) (“LBIE”) pool of client money. Lehman Bros. Int. (Europe) (In Administration) v CRC Credit Fund Ltd. & Ors, [2010] EWCA Civ 917 (appeal taken from the Chancery Division) (U.K.).

Background

The recent descision of BNY v Eurosail1 is an important modern descision on the blance sheet test for insolvency.

Armed with an adjudicator’s decision and a TCC enforcement judgment, can a party issue a statutory demand for payment, even if the other party has a genuine and substantial cross claim against the sum awarded? No, said Judge Stephen Davies in Shaw v MFP. Neither the Construction Act nor the Scheme was intended to displace the position under the Insolvency Rules, which give the court discretion to set aside a statutory demand if the debtor appears to have a counterclaim, set-off or cross demand which equals or exceeds the debt in the statutory demand.

An adjudicator can only deal with one dispute under one contract. In Enterprise v McFadden the adjudicator could not therefore deal with a claim to a net balance arising out of mutual dealings on four separate subcontracts (one of which was not even a construction contract) under Rule 4.90 of the Insolvency Rules 1986. Tripartite adjudication is not possible so the adjudication could not cope with a cross claim which would have involved joining assignors.

Last week the High Court of England and Wales revoked a company voluntary arrangement (CVA) promoted by retailer Miss Sixty in a damning judgment that called into question the conduct of the practitioners involved. The case of Mourant & Co Trustees Limited v Sixty UK Limited (in administration) [2010] could end so-called guarantee stripping – where the CVA purports to discharge guarantees given by a third party – and provide powerful ammunition to landlords seeking to negotiate future CVAs with tenant companies.

The summer months are upon us, and developments in insolvency law and practice continue apace. Since our Spring issue the courts have pronounced in a number of interesting cases. At the time of writing, the World Cup is underway – it would perhaps be remiss not to have some football flavour in this article, and so some observations on the plight of Portsmouth FC are appropriate (though saved till the end).

Successive notices of intention to appoint administrators: more than one moratorium?

In the case of Global Knafaim Leasing Ltd & Anor v The Civil Aviation Authority & Ors [2010] EWHC 1348 (Admin), the UK’s High Court held that the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) and BAA Ltd. (BAA) were entitled to a statutory lien of a lessor’s aircraft, to ensure a lessor pays all the outstanding route and aircraft charges of an insolvent operator and its fleet of aircraft, and not just those related to the aircraft of the lessor.