Treasury has published the 12 responses it received to its consultation on a special administration regime for investment firms resolution and draft legislation that takes into account its views on the responses. One Order clarifies that the definition of “client assets” includes money, but not money held in respect of insurance mediation. The other sets out the new regime. Respondents broadly supported the proposals and favoured an approach that would require the return of all client money and assets, not just segregated ones.

In a recent high profile case brought by the administrators of 20 insolvent companies in the Lehman and Nortel groups, the High Court ruled that the cost of complying with a financial support direction (“FSD”) issued after the date of the commencement of a company’s administration or liquidation by the Pensions Regulator would rank as an expense of the administration or liquidation.

The High Court has struck down a company voluntary arrangement on the ground that it unfairly prejudiced a landlord who was to lose the benefit of a guarantee given by the tenant’s parent company. The judge said it was “unreasonable and unfair in principle” to require the landlord to give up the guarantee and there was “no sufficient justification” for requiring the landlord to accept a sum of money in lieu.

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

The Determinations Panel gave its reasons for imposing financial support directions (FSDs) on six Lehman Brothers companies on 29 September 2009. SNR Denton represented 22 of the 44 companies targeted for FSDs. The Determinations Panel accepted our submission that it would not be reasonable to impose an FSD on any of the companies we represented because of the Pensions Regulator's failure to particularise its case against them.

Background

Commercial sellers need to be particularly careful when purporting to sell property with vacant possession. In a recent case, Area Estates Limited v Weir (2010), Area Estates tried to sell a site to Weir, telling Weir that Area’s former tenant had surrendered its lease, so that Area could sell with vacant possession.

In the recent judgment of Gray and others v G-T-P Group Limited, the High Court considered whether a charge fell within the scope of the Financial Collateral (No.2) Regulations 2003 (“the Regulations”) and would not therefore be void against a liquidator, despite not being registered with the Registrar of Companies.

A party cannot appeal a decision made in bankruptcy proceedings by reason only of a personal interest in the outcome. An economic interest is a pre-requisite.

This was confirmed by the court in Sands and another v Monem and another, in which the bankrupt had transferred the interest in his home to his wife before being made bankrupt. The transfer was made allegedly in order to settle a debt, although this was not reflected in the documentation. That transfer was successfully set aside as a preference by the bankrupt's trustee.

Background

Last week the High Court of England and Wales revoked a company voluntary arrangement (CVA) promoted by retailer Miss Sixty in a damning judgment that called into question the conduct of the practitioners involved. The case of Mourant & Co Trustees Limited v Sixty UK Limited (in administration) [2010] could end so-called guarantee stripping – where the CVA purports to discharge guarantees given by a third party – and provide powerful ammunition to landlords seeking to negotiate future CVAs with tenant companies.