The Supreme Court’s decision in a dispute over a parent company guarantee will change the way insolvency practitioners deal with the distribution of assets when a corporate group collapses.

The Supreme Court recently considered the scope of the anti-deprivation principle, in Belmont Park Investments PTY Limited (respondent) v. BNY Corporate Trustee Services Limited and Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc (appellant) [2011] UKSC 38 (Belmont). Understanding the scope of this principle is important for anyone entering a contract where the parties’ rights and obligations change if one of them enters an insolvency procedure. Robert Spedding explains how the courts applied the principle in Belmont and makes some practical suggestions for avoiding problems.

Application for an administration order in respect of FM Front Door Ltd. The application followed FM’s failure to make payments under a loan from the Dunfermline Building Society obtained to assist with the purchase of flats at the Skyline development on Finniestoun Street in Glasgow.  The loan was secured by a floating charge and standard securities over each of the flats. FM’s parent company FM Developments also granted a guarantee for the loan.

Clause 13 of the loan agreement provided that the grounds for default included:

What happens if one party to a contract fails to perform? Can the innocent party get all of its losses back? What happens if the losses are difficult to prove?

Here, we look at what you can claim and how to protect your position.

The general rule

Damages for breach of contract are usually intended to compensate the injured party for its losses arising naturally from the breach or which were within the parties' contemplation when the contract was made.

The Masri litigation has yet again troubled the English Court on the principle of comity and provided the Court of Appeal with the opportunity to say just how important it is in international debt enforcement.

The background on Masri

The effect of the CA decision

The Court of Appeal handed down its judgment on 14 October 2011 unanimously upholding the first instance decision that a Financial Support Direction (FSD) issued by the Pensions Regulator to an entity after it has commenced insolvency proceedings will rank as an expense of the administration, therefore affording it super-priority over floating charge holders and other unsecured creditors. This decisions has significant implications for lenders to groups with UK defined benefit pension plans if any of their security is taken as a floating charge.

MF Global, one of the world's leading broker/dealer firms entered into insolvency proceedings in both the US and the UK on 31 October 2011. US entities MF Global Holdings Ltd. and MF Global Finance USA Inc. filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the US Bankruptcy Code in the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. Also on 31 October, the US Securities Investor Protection Corporation ("SIPC") initiated the liquidation of MF Global, Inc. a jointly registered futures commission merchant and broker-dealer, under the Securities Investor Protection Act ("SIPA").

The UK Financial Services Authority (“FSA”) confirmed on 31 Oct. 2011 that MF Global UK Limited (“MF Global UK”) will be subject to the new Special Administration Regime (“SAR”).^[1] This is the first time that the new regime, set out in The Investment Bank Special Administration Regulations 2011 (“SAR Regulations”)^[2] has been invoked.

Background

According to the credit insurer, Euler Helmes, there were more insolvencies in construction than in any other sector during the first six months of 2011.

Where an insolvency affects consultants and contractors mid project then clients will be concerned about the possible ramifications for their projects.  What are some of the key considerations for a client in this scenario.