Belmont Park Investments Pty Limited v BNY Corporate Trustee Services Limited and another [2011] UKSC 38.

The Supreme Court has clarified the extent to which it is possible for a contract to provide for a company or individual to lose assets on insolvency.  

Summary

Well-established rules are unchanged, so landlords can still forfeit leases on insolvency. In other cases, if a transaction is entered into in good faith and for valid commercial reasons, it is likely to be upheld.

The Government is proposing to amend (for a twelfth time!) the Regulations under s75 Pensions Act 1995. The amendments would make it easier to vary the basis on which liability is shared between employers.

Background – the Regulations as they stand

The Sinclair v Versailles1 decision has extinguished any prospect that a victim of a fraud has a proprietary claim to a fraudster’s secret profits. It also offers significant comfort to banks, insolvency practitioners and other potential recipients of trust funds by setting a high bar for whether a recipient person is “on notice” of a proprietary claim to those funds.

The recent Court of Session case of Tayplan Limited (in administration) v Smith, is particularly interesting as it is a case where the administrator chose to pursue directors for breach of fiduciary duties rather than using any of the more common statutory remedies.

The Facts

Tayplan Limited was a family business with two directors - Mr Smith senior and Mr Smith junior. Mr Smith senior and his wife each held 50% of the shares in the Company.

A claim by trustees against an insolvent participating employer (who has ceased to participate in the pension scheme) for its share of the scheme deficit is a contingent obligation at the date of winding up and is admissible in the winding-up. This follows the decision by the Outer House of the Court of Session in Scotland in Burton, Re Direction of Assets [2010] CSOH 174.

Summary. The Pensions Regulator (the Regulator) has issued a statement on regulated apportionment arrangements (RAA) and employer insolvency (the statement).

Release provisions

The scope of the powers afforded to the security agent by the so called “release provisions” found in many intercreditor agreements employed in LBO deals has come under scrutiny recently. A number of restructurings have relied upon using the security agent’s powers to implement a restructuring and many others will have at least considered using them.

It is reported in the press that the PWC administrators of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) Limited (LBIE), the London-based arm of the Lehman bank, are to appeal the recent Court of Appeal ruling relating to the distribution of segregated client funds. The first instance judge held that those clients of LBIE whose funds should have been segregated, but were not, were not entitled to share in the pot of client money. This follows normal trust law. The Court of Appeal reversed this ruling, on the basis of its construction of the client money rules.

The recent sale of the bulk of Connaught's failed social housing group has received a lot of positive press attention of late, due largely to the number of jobs the deal is reported to have saved.

The sale appears to have occurred within days of Connaught going into administration. While there has been no suggestion that the deal was effected as a "pre-pack", the speed with which the sale was carried out echoes the most prominent feature of true pre-pack deals.

Just as this issue of the Insurance and Reinsurance Review was going to press, the Court of Appeal handed down its decision in the appeal in CRC Credit Fund Ltd & Ors v GLG Investments Plc (Sub-Fund: European Equity Fund) & Ors (reported at [2010] EWCA Civ 917) against the decision of Mr. Justice Briggs, reported in our March 2010 issue.