Gleave and others v The Board of the Pension Protection Fund [2008] EWHC 1099 (Ch)

The High Court ruled that calculations of employer debt by scheme actuaries cannot be challenged by insolvency practitioners unless there is evidence of fraud or error.

This blog refers to Bettina Goletz’s blog on “Limits on non-compete and non-solicitation clauses under German law”. We have recently been asked whether the employee is entitled to compensation payments under a post-contractual non-compete clause in the situation where the employing company files for insolvency.

At the end of 2011, the Federal Government introduced two draft Bills directed at clamping down on companies that engage in “phoenix” activity.

On 25 March 2010, HM Treasury published a consultation paper which proposes improvements to the protection and payment of benefits for policyholders of insurers in financial difficulty. In particular, the proposals address certain gaps in the regime for insurers in administration in contrast to the regime applied in liquidation.

On October 30, 2009, the Supreme Court of Canada released its long-anticipated decision in Quebec (Revenue) v. Caisse populaire Desjardins de Montmagny. At issue in this case (and two companion cases) was the legal characterization of Crown rights with respect to collected but unremitted GST and Quebec sales tax (QST) in the hands of a trustee in bankruptcy. The Supreme Court confirmed that the Crown is an ordinary unsecured creditor with respect to such amounts, subject to the rights of prior ranking security holders.

Summary of Facts

The FSA has published a statement entitled Wider implications referral: Lehman-backed structured products.  

In the statement the FSA together with the Financial Ombudsman Service have jointly concluded that the Lehman Brothers’ insolvency raises issues in the UK structured products market.  

It has been agreed that the FSA will now consider issues relating to Lehman-backed structured products under “the wider implications process” in order to allow it to explore all options to achieve the best outcome for consumers.  

During a public hearing concerning the draft circular of the German regulator dealing with “Regulatory minimum requirements of risk management” BaFin has reiterated that the principles of the circular which implement parts of the Solvency II regime will not be used to control the business decisions of German insurers. BaFin reacted to some of the concerns raised by insurers but did warn German insurers to prepare ahead for Solvency II and not wait until 2012.

Introduction

When the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency (Model Law) was introduced into Australian law in 2008, Australian admiralty practitioners expressed concern that the legislation which enacted the Model Law into Australian law did not take into account its potential impact on the right to arrest a ship in Australia.  The concern was that the Model Law would prevent parties from arresting ships in Australia, if the shipowner or charterer was the subject of foreign insolvency proceedings.  

In the Kitchener Frame Ltd¹ decision, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) confirmed that third-party releases in proposals made under the BIA² are permitted. In doing so, the Court relied on the principle that the BIA and CCAA³ ought to be read and interpreted, harmoniously. Finally, the Court sanctioned a consolidated proposal on the basis it met the requirements set out in section 59(2) of the BIA.

On 12 March 2010, the FSA published the statement that it had provided to the court appointed examiner of Lehman Brothers Holding Inc, which is referred to in his wider report on the collapse of Lehman Brothers.

View FSA statement to the US bankruptcy court examiner on the collapse of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc, 12 March 2010