The UK Supreme Court has recently considered the role of commercial common sense in interpreting a contract.  Rainy Sky v Kookmin Bank concerned the interpretation of bonds issued by Kookmin Bank to guarantee the return of advance payments made by six purchasers under separate shipbuilding contracts. The shipbuilder had suffered an insolvency event and the purchasers were claiming refunds of the advance payments made to the shipbuilder under the bonds. The Bank contended that the bonds did not guarantee repayment of the advances on insolvency.

In Akers & Ors v Samba Financial Group (Rev 1) [2017] UKSC 6, the UK Supreme Court confirmed that British insolvency officers can only void dispositions of a company's assets held on trust in certain circumstances. 

In a comprehensive judgment arising out of the collapse of Lehman Brothers, the UK Supreme Court recently determined the ranking of creditors.

Principally, the Court held that Lehman Brothers International (Europe)'s subordinated debt holders were "at the bottom of the waterfall", behind statutory interest and non-provable debt claimants.

Last month the Insolvency Working Group released its second and final report, dealing with voidable transactions and Ponzi schemes.  The Group's first report was released in July 2016 and dealt with regulation of insolvency practitioners and voluntary liquidations.  In the second report, the Working Group make a number of recommendations on the voidable transaction regime and regarding protection from Ponzi schemes.  In relation to voidable transactions, the primary recommendations were repealing the "gave value" part of the defence available to creditors with a view to incre

In Bailey v Angove's Pty Limited [2016] UKSC 47, the UK Supreme Court affirmed two principles of critical significance to insolvency practitioners.  The first is that even if the parties should agree that an agent's authority is irrevocable, it will not be treated as such unless such non-revocation is intended to secure the financial interest of the agent.  The second is that when money is paid to an agent for a consideration that the agent knows at the time of receipt must fail because of the agent's imminent insolvency, such receipt will not give rise to a rem

As the focus on ESG issues intensifies in the financial markets, we have seen institutional investors demand more in these areas, in terms of both disclosures and concrete targets, from banks and funds. Meanwhile, emerging regulations, and reforms designed to help meet climate change targets and to enhance corporate governance, sustainability and environmental and social responsibility are underway. How will refinancings and restructurings of the significant amount of corporate debt coming out of COVID be affected by such winds of change?

Following the judgments in recent years on attribution to a company of its directors' knowledge in Bilta (UK) Ltd (In Liquidation) v Nazir [2015] UKSC 23 and UBS AG (London Branch) and another v Kommunale Wasserwerke Leipzig [2017] EWCA Civ 1567, the UK Supreme Court has once more returned to this issue in Singularis Holdings Ltd (in Official Liquidation) (a Company Incorporated in The Cayman Islands) v Daiwa Capital Markets Europe Ltd [2019] UKSC 50, in a case where a bank (Daiwa) was held liable for breaching its Quincecare duty of care to its customer,

In the much anticipated decision of Belmont Park Investments PTY Limited v BNY Corporate Trustee Services Limited and Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc [2011] UKSC 38 the Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed the appeal of Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc (“LBSF”) and in so doing provided clarification as to the scope and application of the anti-deprivation rule (the “Rule”).

On 29 February 2012, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom handed down its long-awaited judgment on client money issues in the context of the Lehman's Administration. The judgment has an important bearing on likely recoveries for both segregated and non-segregated clients, the further work to be conducted by the Administrators and timing of distributions.

Summary

The Supreme Court has found that:

The Supreme Court has delivered a judgment providing welcome clarification on the construction and effect of section 123(2) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the "balance-sheet" insolvency test) and its interaction with section 123(1)(e) of the Act (the "cash flow" insolvency test).