The Court of Appeal has held in the recent case of Spaceright Europe Ltd v Baillavoine and another (2011) that a dismissal can be for “a reason connected with the transfer” under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (“TUPE”) even if there is no particular transfer or transferee in existence or contemplation at the time of the dismissal. In the case Mr Baillavoine, the Chief Executive of Ultralon Holdings Ltd (“Ultralon”), was dismissed on the day Ultralon was placed into administration.
In Re Ruiz (a bankrupt) [2011] EWHC 913 (Fam) the High Court ruled that a wife’s right to occupy the matrimonial home did not prevent her husband’s trustee in bankruptcy (TiB) gaining and enforcing a proprietary interest in the property.
The Facts
M and G married in 2001 and moved into a house purchased by M and registered in his sole name. In 2006 divorce proceedings were initiated, following which G obtained a freezing order over M’s assets and an occupation order over the marital home.
This appeal was brought by the insolvency practitioners dealing with the Nortel and Lehman Brothers companies. The Regulator’s Determinations Panel has, in relation to both the Nortel and Lehman Brothers pension schemes, issued warning notices of its intention to issue Financial Support Directions (FSDs) against group companies.
In its judgment of 11 October 2011, the English Court of Appeal analysed the terms of an aircraft purchase agreement (the “Agreement”) entered into by Gesner and the aircraft manufacturer Bombardier. The Agreement was in Bombardier’s standard terms. Gesner, the purchaser, sought to terminate the agreement on the grounds that Bombardier had delayed in fulfilling its contractual obligations. Thereafter, Bombardier sought to retain certain monies as liquidated damages upon termination of the Agreement. Gesner challenged this retention.
The UK Supreme Court has recently overturned a much-criticised and controversial ruling of the Court of Appeal by finding an ambiguously worded advance payment bond effective in the case of insolvency. In doing so, it clarified the proper role and application of considerations of business common sense when interpreting commercial contracts. Where a clause is capable of two or more possible interpretations, Rainy Sky SA v Kookmin Bank held that the court should prefer the one which is most consistent with common business sense.
A recent Court of Appeal case confirms that the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933 does apply to judgments in insolvency matters and that the Insolvency Act 1986 can be used to enforce a foreign judgment.
In New Cap Reinsurance Corporation Ltd & Anr v AE Grant & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 971, the Court of Appeal upheld the first instance decision of the Companies Court that a judgment obtained in Australia could be enforced in England under section 426 of the Insolvency Act (the IA) and at common law.
NEW CAP RE: THE FACTS
The respected Financial Markets Law Committee sponsored by the Bank of England has published a paper, dated October 2011, containing an analysis of legal uncertainty in the FSA’s Client Assets Sourcebook (CASS) and arising from judicial decisions relating to the administration of Lehman Brothers International (Europe).
TiBs frequently assign the right to recover debts due to the bankrupt’s estate. The advantage to the TiB is that he receives a lump sum or a share of the proceeds of a successful claim for the benefit of the bankrupt’s creditors without having to fund and pursue litigation himself. In most cases, once a TiB has assigned the right to recover the debt that will be the end of the matter; he just has to wait for the litigation to be concluded when payment of the agreed share will be made. A recent Court of Appeal decision means that this will not always be the case.
Earlier this year, the High Court gave judgment in a case involving a bankrupt who owned property in Morocco (Saunders v Donovan, unreported). The bankrupt had also granted someone a power of attorney in respect of the Moroccan property. The question that fell to be decided by the High Court was four-fold: