TPR settled its dispute with Michael Van de Wiele (VdW) in relation to its UK pension scheme and issued a Contribution Notice (CN) for £60,000. Although this is significantly less than the £21 million originally sought and the £5.08 million decided by the Determinations Panel, TPR says it is “business as usual” for the use of its statutory anti-avoidance powers. A settlement at this level might be viewed as a defeat for TPR and an indication that CNs are not a potent weapon to deal with the avoidance of employer debts. That view would be seriously misguided.

In the much anticipated decision of Belmont Park Investments PTY Limited v BNY Corporate Trustee Services Limited and Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc [2011] UKSC 38 the Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed the appeal of Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc (“LBSF”) and in so doing provided clarification as to the scope and application of the anti-deprivation rule (the “Rule”).

On 10 December 2010, the High Court gave judgment in a joint application by the administrators of certain companies in the Nortel and Lehman estates for directions on the status of any financial support direction (FSD) or contribution notice (CN) issued to the companies in administration or any subsequent liquidation (Bloom & Others v. The Pensions Regulator (Nortel, Re) [2010] EWHC 3010 (Ch)).

The UK Supreme Court, which is the UK's highest court, has handed down its long-awaited decision in Belmont Park Investments Pty Limited v BNY Corporate Trustee Services Limited and Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc [2011] UKSC 38, in which the Court considered the validity and enforceability of so-called "flip" clauses under English bankruptcy law.

Thor Maalouf, an Associate in the London Shipping Group, considers some of the issues which may arise where a party to a charterparty becomes insolvent.

INSOLVENCY ALONE IS NOT ENOUGH TO JUSTIFY TERMINATION

Structured finance transaction documents have typically included subordination provisions in their post-default waterfalls, effectively changing a swap counterparty’s right to get paid from above that of the noteholders to below that of the noteholders.

The case concerned credit default swaps entered into between Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc., and various parties, and the rights of the parties in respect of collateral held by a trustee.

In New Cap Reinsurance Corporation Ltd & Anr v AE Grant & Ors, the Court of Appeal has upheld a first instance decision that section 426 of the Insolvency Act (IA) can be used to enforce a foreign monetary judgment in insolvency proceedings. However, the Court acknowledged that where there exists a statutory framework for the enforcement of foreign judgments, in this case enforcement pursuant to the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933 (the 1933 Act), then enforcement under s.426 of the IA must follow the requirements of the 1933 Act.

The case of White v Davenham Trust Ltd, has reaffirmed that a creditor can choose its own method of enforcing a debt which has been guaranteed even where it might hold security for that debt.

A CVA was introduced as one of the rescue arrangements under the Insolvency Act 1986. It allows a company to settle unsecured debts by paying only a proportion of the amount owed, or to vary the terms on which it pays its unsecured creditors. Whilst a CVA only requires approval of a 75% majority of the creditors by value, it binds every unsecured creditor of the company, including any that voted against it or did not vote at all.