Many employers dread triggering debts under section 75 of the Pensions Act 1995 within their defined benefit pension scheme, but in some circumstances it simply cannot be avoided. Once a section 75 debt has been triggered it is important that the debt is calculated properly. The Actuary is required to calculate the difference between the value of the scheme's assets and the cost of purchasing annuities to secure all of the liabilities of the scheme. But what if there is a delay in calculating the debt? At which date is the Actuary required to ascertain the cost of bu
In the current economic climate, brokers will find the decision of the High Court in Euroption Strategic Fund Limited v Skandinaviska Enskilda Banker AB[2012] EWHC 584 (Comm) of considerable interest, since it considers the duties of a broker who is conducting a close out and liquidating the position of a client who is in a state of default, in this case for failure to meet margin requirements.
The Court ruled that:
Pension scheme assets can rise and fall. So can liabilities. The timing of the section 75 debt calculation is, therefore, critically important to the ability of the scheme to meet its liabilities.
So when should trustees calculate their section 75 debt? Can they use one date to calculate scheme assets and choose a different date to calculate the cost of buying out the scheme’s liabilities?
In the matter of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (In Administration) and in the matter of the Insolvency Act 1986 [2012] UKSC 6 On appeal from [2010] EWCA Civ 917
Summary
In Rhinegold Publishing Ltd v Apex Business Development Ltd, Rhinegold and another company owed debts to the defendant in the sums of approximately £22,000 and £31,000 respectively. The defendant presented a winding-up petition against both companies which resulted in settlement being reached. The settlement provided that the companies would pay off the debts owed in full by monthly payments and that no proceedings would be issued in relation to the debts referred to in the original statutory demand if payment was made.
London - On 29 February 2012, the UK Supreme Court handed down judgment in the much publicised ‘Lehman client money’ case1, ruling in favour of those clients of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (“LBIE”) whose money ought to have been, but never was, segregated from other assets held by LBIE.
Introduction
On 29 February 2012, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom handed down its long-awaited judgment on client money issues in the context of the Lehman's Administration. The judgment has an important bearing on likely recoveries for both segregated and non-segregated clients, the further work to be conducted by the Administrators and timing of distributions.
Summary
The Supreme Court has found that:
The High Court has held that where litigation is commenced against the administrator of a company, arising out of contractual obligations entered into in that capacity, he or she will not be personally liable, despite the insolvent company being unable to meet the resulting liability.(1)
Introduction
Hildyard J’s recent sanctioning of the scheme of arrangement proposed by PrimaCom Holding GmbH (‘’PrimaCom’’), a German incorporated company whose creditors were domiciled outside of the UK, has reaffirmed the extra-territorial jurisdiction of the English courts in respect of schemes of arrangement and confirmed their status as a useful instrument for foreign companies looking to restructure1.
The process