Introduction

The UK Supreme Court judgment in BNY Corporate Trustee Services Limited and others v Eurosail-UK 2007-3BL PLC [2013] UKSC 28 was handed down on 9 May 2013. It considered: (a) the meaning of the balance sheet insolvency test as laid out in section 123(2) of the UK Insolvency Act 1986 (the "Act"); and (b) the legal effect of a post-enforcement call option ("PECO") and, in particular, whether the existence of a PECO is relevant to an assessment of balance sheet insolvency.

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).

UK Supreme Court decision confirms traditional rules on enforcement of all US judgments in England and reverses a significant liberalisation of cross-border bankruptcy law.

The UK Supreme Court today delivered an important decision on the meaning of the so-called 'balance sheet insolvency test' in s.123(2) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (UK) (BNY Corporate Trustee Services Limited v Eurosail 2007-3BL PLC [2013] UKSC 28 ("Eurosail")).

The UK Supreme Court judgment in the conjoined cases of Rubin and another v Eurofinance SA and others and New Cap Reinsurance Corporation (in Liquidation) and another v AE Grant and others [2012] UKSC 46, which provides vital clarification on the effect of foreign insolvency judgments on the UK courts.

Background & Court of Appeal

In a recent landmark ruling, the UK Supreme Court deliberated on the question of whether an overseas defendant had to have submitted to the jurisdiction under common law before a foreign bankruptcy order would be recognised and enforced in England. Richard Keady and Jay Qin of Bird & Bird consider the practical implications of the decision and the significance it may have on practitioners going forward.

Pensions New (PN) has often had cause to ask himself what he knows.  A similar sort of question was frequently posed by the French essayist, Michel de Montaigne.  Montaigne lived between 1533 and 1592 and he answered this question over the course of a period of time during which he produced several volumes of great essays.  In those volumes, Montaigne covered many subjects however he never covered the subject of the occupational defined benefit pension scheme.  So far PN knows, this is the first article ever written about Montaigne’s relationshi

On 31 October 2018 the Supreme Court issued its Judgment in the appeal of Dooneen Ltd (t/a McGinness Associates) and another (Respondents) v Mond (Appellant) (Scotland) [2018] UKSC 54.

The appeal had been brought by Mr Mond who had sought to overturn the decision of the Inner House of the Court of Session (Dooneen Ltd & Others V Mond [2016] CSIH 59).

Factual background

Directors may not be able to rely on limitation as a defence to some misfeasance claims, following the Supreme Court's decision in Burnden Holdings (UK) Ltd v Fielding [2018] UKSC 14.

Where directors have obtained an economic benefit from an unlawful distribution they are not entitled to rely on the lapse of time as a defence to any claim brought by the company, held the Supreme Court.

This article was first published in Butterworth's Journal of International Banking & Financial Law. To access a copy click here. 

Key Points