Skip to main content
Enter a keyword
  • Login
  • Home

    Main navigation

    Menu
    • US Law
      • Chapter 15 Cases
    • Regions
      • Africa
      • Asia Pacific
      • Europe
      • North Africa/Middle East
      • North America
      • South America
    • Headlines
    • Education Resources
      • ABI Committee Articles
      • ABI Journal Articles
      • Covid 19
      • Conferences and Webinars
      • Newsletters
      • Publications
    • Events
    • Firm Articles
    • About Us
      • ABI International Board Committee
      • ABI International Member Committee Leadership
    • Join
    Practical implications of the Supreme Court's client money decision
    2012-04-26

    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

    Filed under:
    United Kingdom, Banking, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Wedlake Bell, Lehman Brothers, FSA, Supreme Court of the United States
    Authors:
    Edward Starling
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Firm:
    Wedlake Bell
    The Lehmans client money case: clients and a common misfortune
    2012-03-05

    Introduction

    Filed under:
    United Kingdom, Capital Markets, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Locke Lord LLP, Lehman Brothers, Supreme Court of the United States
    Authors:
    Charles Proctor
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Firm:
    Locke Lord LLP
    More confusion on client money: the latest on Lehman
    2012-03-13

    Background

    The United Kingdom Supreme Court recently decided the appeal in the important case In the Matter of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (LBIE) (In Administration) and In the matter of the Insolvency Act 1986 [2012] UK (the Case).

    In summary, the Case is about which claims can be treated as claims for client money. This turns on interpreting the rules of the UK’s Financial Services Authority’s (FSA) Client Assets Sourcebook (CASS) in chapter 7 of CASS. These FSA rules stem from the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID).

    Filed under:
    United Kingdom, Capital Markets, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Dentons, FSA, Supreme Court of the United States, UK Supreme Court
    Authors:
    Josie Day
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Firm:
    Dentons
    Supreme Court widens scope of ‘client money’
    2012-03-01

    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.

    Filed under:
    United Kingdom, Banking, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, RPC, Lehman Brothers, MiFID, Supreme Court of the United States
    Authors:
    Steve Wyndham
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Firm:
    RPC
    Nortel: not just bad news for banks
    2011-11-08

    The Court of Appeal decision in the Nortel case upheld the High Court ruling that FSD/CN liability is an expense of the administration and therefore ranks ahead of administrators' remuneration, floating charges and unsecured creditors. Much of the press coverage which has followed in the immediate aftermath seems to have assumed that the decision is a victory for "good" pensioners over the "bad" banks.

    Filed under:
    United Kingdom, Banking, Employee Benefits & Pensions, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, Unsecured debt, Debt, Defined benefit pension plan, Building society, Financial Services Compensation Scheme, The Pensions Regulator (UK), Pension Protection Fund, Supreme Court of the United States, Court of Appeal of England & Wales, High Court of Justice (England & Wales)
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Firm:
    Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer
    Supreme Court rules on the scope of the rule against double proof
    2011-11-11

    The Supreme Court’s decision in a dispute over a parent company guarantee will change the way insolvency practitioners deal with the distribution of assets when a corporate group collapses.

    Filed under:
    United Kingdom, Banking, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, Parent company, Supreme Court of the United States
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Firm:
    Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer
    Anti-deprivation: still worth worrying about?
    2011-11-15

    The Supreme Court recently considered the scope of the anti-deprivation principle, in Belmont Park Investments PTY Limited (respondent) v. BNY Corporate Trustee Services Limited and Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc (appellant) [2011] UKSC 38 (Belmont). Understanding the scope of this principle is important for anyone entering a contract where the parties’ rights and obligations change if one of them enters an insolvency procedure. Robert Spedding explains how the courts applied the principle in Belmont and makes some practical suggestions for avoiding problems.

    Filed under:
    United Kingdom, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Dentons, Contractual term, Collateral (finance), Landlord, Interest, Swap (finance), Good faith, Common law, Default (finance), Credit default swap, Lehman Brothers, Supreme Court of the United States, UK Supreme Court
    Authors:
    Robert Spedding
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Firm:
    Dentons
    Common sense counts when construing commercial contracts
    2011-11-17

    In Rainy Sky S.A and six others v Kookmin Bank [2011] UKSC 50, the Supreme Court provided useful guidance on the role of business common sense in construing a clause in a commercial contract, particularly in circumstances where there are competing plausible constructions, neither of which is clearly preferable on the language used alone.

    The facts

    Filed under:
    United Kingdom, Banking, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Shipping & Transport, RPC, Bond (finance), Condition precedent, Consideration, Default (finance), Majority opinion, Supreme Court of the United States, UK Supreme Court, Singapore High Court
    Authors:
    Daniel Hemming
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Firm:
    RPC
    Supreme Court confirms that flip clauses don’t violate anti-deprivation principle
    2011-10-10

    One of the many issues which arose from the collapse of Lehman Brothers was whether “flip provisions”, which reverse a swap counterparty’s priority in the order of payment on insolvency, were invalid on the basis that they contravened the anti-deprivation principle.  This is a long-established common law principle which seeks to prevent an insolvent party from arranging its affairs to frustrate the legitimate claims of creditors.

    Filed under:
    United Kingdom, Derivatives, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, King & Wood Mallesons, Swap (finance), Good faith, Common law, Lehman Brothers cases, Lehman Brothers, Supreme Court of the United States
    Authors:
    Robert Hanley
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Firm:
    King & Wood Mallesons
    Deprived or deserved? The Supreme Court clarifies its interpretation of the anti-deprivation rule
    2011-10-10

    In its recent decision in Belmont Park Investments PTY Ltd v BNY Corporate trustee Services Ltd and Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc,[1] the Supreme Court ruled in favour of investors, clarifying the limits of the anti-deprivation rule and holding that a commercially sensible transaction entered into in good faith and without the intention to evade insolvency laws should not infringe the anti-deprivation rule.

    Background

    Filed under:
    United Kingdom, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Wedlake Bell, Bankruptcy, Debtor, Collateral (finance), Good faith, Common law, Default (finance), Credit default swap, Lehman Brothers, Trustee, Supreme Court of the United States
    Authors:
    Edward Starling
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Firm:
    Wedlake Bell

    Pagination

    • First page « First
    • Previous page ‹‹
    • …
    • Page 44
    • Page 45
    • Page 46
    • Page 47
    • Current page 48
    • Page 49
    • Page 50
    • Page 51
    • Page 52
    • …
    • Next page ››
    • Last page Last »
    Home

    Quick Links

    • US Law
    • Headlines
    • Firm Articles
    • Board Committee
    • Member Committee
    • Join
    • Contact Us

    Resources

    • ABI Committee Articles
    • ABI Journal Articles
    • Conferences & Webinars
    • Covid-19
    • Newsletters
    • Publications

    Regions

    • Africa
    • Asia Pacific
    • Europe
    • North Africa/Middle East
    • North America
    • South America

    © 2025 Global Insolvency, All Rights Reserved

    Joining the American Bankruptcy Institute as an international member will provide you with the following benefits at a discounted price:

    • Full access to the Global Insolvency website, containing the latest worldwide insolvency news, a variety of useful information on US Bankruptcy law including Chapter 15, thousands of articles from leading experts and conference materials.
    • The resources of the diverse community of United States bankruptcy professionals who share common business and educational goals.
    • A central resource for networking, as well as insolvency research and education (articles, newsletters, publications, ABI Journal articles, and access to recorded conference presentation and webinars).

    Join now or Try us out for 30 days