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.

The Supreme Court yesterday ruled that client money held in un-segregated accounts should be treated the same as client money held in segregated accounts, enabling un-segregated account holders to share in the client money pool on the insolvency of a firm with whom the account is held.

Commercial Agreements -v- Commercial Reality: Supreme Court further develops principles of contractual interpretation?

Rainy Sky S.A. and others v Kookmin Bank [2011] UKSC 50

Summary

The Supreme Court handed down its judgment in relation to the client money application in the matter of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (LBIE). The judgment has a number of implications for firms who hold client money, and for firms who hold money with banks and other firms as clients themselves. The complicated and controversial nature of the appeal is reflected in the sharply opposing opinions of the Lords in relation to two of the three issues considered.

On 29 February, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom handed down its judgment on the treatment of client money that had not been segregated, or was improperly segregated, as at the date Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (“LBIE”) entered administration. The Supreme Court found that:

The courts and FOS are now headed down very different paths in their approach to credit crunch losses suffered by clients of regulated firms. While FOS has all but abandoned the general law of causation in its approach to cases of consumer detriment, we have observed how the courts have held again and again that the general law of causation applies to mis-selling claims.

Regulation 7 of TUPE states that a dismissal will be automatically unfair if the main reason for dismissal is the transfer itself, or a reason connected with the transfer that is not an economic, technical or organisational reason entailing changes in the workforce (‘ETO reason’). This provision has caused some uncertainty where employees are dismissed by an administrator in order to make a business more attractive to a prospective (but as yet unknown) purchaser.

Clarification on the jurisdiction of the English courts to sanction schemes of arrangement for overseas companies

Providing further evidence that schemes of arrangement (“schemes”) are an increasingly useful tool in the restructuring of overseas companies, on 20 January 2012, the High Court sanctioned a scheme proposed by PrimaCom Holding GmbH (“PrimaCom”), a German incorporated company, with its centre of main interests (or “COMI”) in Germany and whose affected creditors were domiciled outside the UK.

Where there is no evidence of lack of authority in placing orders which have not been paid, the court refused to allow an injunction to restrain a winding-up petition.

In the matter of A company (2012) (the company), a creditor had issued a statutory demand against it in relation to invoices for advertising placed with it by the company's sales and marketing manager (M) that were unpaid. The company argued that those orders had been placed without its authority and M admitted that she had exceeded her authority in so placing them.