There have been rumours in the pensions industry for a while that the Bonas case was not in fact the first contribution notice (CN) case to be decided by the Regulator's Determination Panel (Panel).  In March 2012 these rumours proved to be true when the embargo in the case of the Desmond Pension Scheme was lifted and details were published for the first time.  This speedbrief considers the Panel's determination to impose contribution notices on two individuals (Mr Desmond and Mr Gordon) and the Upper Tribunal's decision on various preliminary iss

In Blight v Brewster [2012] EWHC 165 (Ch) the High Court allowed a creditor to enforce his judgment debt against a debtor's pension funds. The court followed a 2011 Privy Council case (Tasarruf Mevduati Sinorta Fonu v Merrill Lynch Bank and Trust Company & ors) in holding that it had jurisdiction to do so under section 37 of the Senior Courts Act 1981. Section 37 provides that the court may appoint a receiver in all cases in which it appears to the court to be just and convenient to do so.

In its recent decision in Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (in administration)¹  the Supreme Court resolves the uncertainty where a regulated firm does not properly segregate client monies. The decision has a number of practical implications, not only for the administration of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (LBIE) but also for the way client monies are held by institutions.  

Background

A new practice direction on insolvency proceedings came into force on 23 February 2012. It contains procedural requirements for various aspects of proceedings under the Insolvency Act 1986 and the Insolvency Rules 1986.

A High Court ruling in England today has provided a significant clarification of the law relating to payment of rent as an administration expense.

In Leisure (Norwich) II Limited v Luminar Lava Ignite Limited (in administration), the Court confirmed that rent payable in advance prior to the appointment of administrators is not payable as an expense of the administration, even if the administrators continue to use the property. This means that the rent would not be given priority over other unsecured debts.

In a keenly anticipated judgment, the Court of Appeal today handed down its verdict in four appeals¹ concerning the interpretation of various terms of the 1992 ISDA Master Agreement.

Landlords have lost round two in the ongoing battle as to whether rent should be paid as an expense of the administration. The decision of the Court last week in the X-Leisure / Luminar case was in favour of administrators.

Following the Goldacre case, if an administrator is using the property for the purposes of the administration on the quarter day then the full quarter’s rent is payable as an expense of the administration.  What was not clear, was whether if the administrator was appointed just after the quarter day rent was payable as an expense. 

Raithatha v Williamson (4 April 2012) and Blight and others v Brewster (9 February 2012)

Most pension schemes give the beneficiary an option as to when to start to draw the pension, and whether or not to draw a tax free lump sum. These two cases confirm that a trustee in bankruptcy and a judgment creditor are each entitled to compel a debtor to draw the maximum permitted by the scheme rules, so that the monies realised as a result are available to pay the debt.  

Pension schemes and bankruptcy

The High Court has recently considered whether a bankrupt individual of pensionable age can be forced to draw his pension to pay his creditors.

Raithatha v. Williamson [2012] EWHC 909 (Ch)

Background

A bankruptcy order was made against Mr Raithatha on 9 November 2010. Mr Raithatha's trustee in bankruptcy applied for an income payments order (IPO) against Mr Raithatha's pension shortly before he was due to be discharged from bankruptcy. Mr Raithatha was then aged 59 and his pension scheme allowed him to draw a pension from age 55.

Last week the Court of Appeal of England and Wales handed down its decision in four appeals which raise a number of questions of construction in relation to derivatives in the form of interest rate swaps and forward freight agreements documented under the International Swaps and Derivatives Association Inc. Master Agreement (the “ISDA Master Agreement”).¹ In particular, the decision focuses on the interpretation of section 2(a)(iii) of the ISDA Master Agreement.

Key Points