The English High Court in London Borough of Brent v Kane [2014] EWHC 4564 has held that legal advice taken in relation to various transactions which the claimant alleged had been made at an undervalue was not protected by privilege, as there was prima facie evidence that the purpose of the legal advice was to structure the transactions in order to allow the client to avoid or reduce the costs of a residential care home. 

Facts

The Regulator has updated its guidance on assessing and monitoring the employer covenant in order to help trustees apply the defined benefit funding code of practice (“the Code”).

The guidance is intended to identify good practice for trustees in:

Debtors Bankruptcy Petitions

These will shortly be made by Debtors online. We comment further on the change below, but we note that it is consistent with the Government's approach on a number of fronts to cut the taxpayer's bill for court costs.

The Insolvency Service has confirmed in the summer edition of its quarterly newsletter that applications for bankruptcy orders by debtors (as distinct to creditors) will be moving from the Courts to an online portal run by the Insolvency Service with effect from April 2016.

Following a long line of cases preceding it, the English court in Re Van Gansewinkel Groep BV (‘VGG’) 1 has sanctioned a (solvent) English scheme of arrangement (‘Scheme’) under the Companies Act 2006 (the ‘Companies Act’) proposed by a group of foreign companies whose COMI2 and assets were located outside of England (‘foreign companies’).

Key Point

Court finds equity to rescind a contract does not mean sums paid by relevant counterparties are held on constructive trust.

The Facts

Two currency exchange companies (the "Companies") were placed in creditors' voluntary liquidation, holding sums in their bank accounts with Barclays, and in their own counting houses. The liquidators made applications to determine whether the Companies held such monies on trust for their customers.

The Decision

In Winnington Networks Communications Ltd v HMRC^[1], the Chancery Division Companies Court (Nicholas Le Poidevin QC) refused the taxpayer company's application to have HMRC's winding-up petitions dismissed, as it had failed to provide evidence that it had a real prospect of successfully disputing the debt claimed by HMRC.

Background

Latest Lehman judgment reassures end users on Close-out Rights

It is undeniable that the legal complexities, and unprecedented facts, of the long running Lehman Brothers saga have generated a wealth of legal principal, most notably through the Waterfall series of litigation.

Dealing with subject access requests (“SAR”s) under the Data Protection Act 1998 is becoming a regular occurrence for many organisations, particularly banks and their advisors.  Processing such requests can take up significant manpower and the costs can be substantial.  Whilst designed to allow individuals to access personal data, determine its source, why it is held and who it is shared with, in reality SARs are frequently being used as a fishing exercise for prospective litigation and complaints against institutions such as banks.  The recent case of 

In April 2015, the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal bought by The Trustees of the Olympic Airlines SA Pension and Life Assurance Scheme ("the Scheme") and held that Olympic Airlines SA ("Olympic Airlines") did not have an "establishment" in the UK when the Trustees presented a winding up petition in England on 20 July 2010.

The significance of the decision is that without a "qualifying insolvency event", the Scheme would not enter the Pension Protection Fund ("PPF") and is of significance for any defined benefit pension scheme of a UK branch office of an overseas company.

At a time when insolvency practitioner’s (“IPs”) fees are being scrutinised more closely than ever, the case of Bell v Birchall and others [2015] is a timely reminder to IPs to consider the necessity of the work they propose to undertake, particularly in respect of assets that do not form part of the insolvent estate. In this case, the court ruled that it had no jurisdiction to make a “Berkeley Applegate” order.