On 29 February 2012, the Supreme Court handed down its decision In the matter of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (In Administration) and In the matter of the Insolvency Act 1986. The appeal addressed the meaning and application of Chapter 7 of the Client Assets Sourcebook (CASS 7) issued by the FSA for the safeguarding and distributing of client money in implementation of the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive 2004/39/EC.
Background
FOS upholds two Keydata complaints against IFAs but concludes that compensation should only be paid in one
The Financial Ombudsman Service ("FOS") has provisionally upheld two complaints made by Mr W and Mr and Mrs K against IFAs who recommended that they invest in the Keydata Bonds in 2005. FOS found that the products presented a greater risk than the investors were willing to take. Interestingly, however, compensation has only been offered to Mr and Mrs K.
KEY POINTS
With the number of retail administrations up 15% in the first quarter of 2012 compared to a year ago (according to research by Deloitte), the recent High Court case of Leisure (Norwich) II Limited v Luminar Lava Ignite Limited (in administration) 28 March 2012 will be of particular interest to landlords. They will not be pleased with the decision that unpaid rent which falls due prior to the appointment of an administrator/liquidator amounts to an unsecured claim against the insolvent tenant. It is not to be treated as an expense of the administration/liquidation (and w
Today, the Financial Services Authority (FSA) published Final Notices for Christchurch Investment Management Limited (Christchurch) and the firm's compliance officer, David Thornberry, for breaches of the FSA's client money rules (CASS rules).
There have been a number of first instance decisions concerning the construction and effect of Section 2 (a) (iii) of the ISDA Master Agreement. The problem has been the conflicts between the various judgments, and in particular, with respect to the interpretation and effect of Section 2 (a) (iii). This has led to uncertainly as to how the Section is intended to operate.
The Court has heard another case dealing with a defective appointment of administrators under paragraph 22 of Schedule B1 Insolvency Act 1986 (“Schedule B1”)1. Following hot on the tail of a recent series of conflicting cases relating to defective appointments, the Court has held that:
It is looking increasingly likely that 2012 will be another difficult year for the automotive sector, leading to a decline, not only in vehicle sales, but also in goods and services supplied to the sector. As a result, businesses may experience cash flow problems and increased creditor pressure to pay invoices.
We previously reported on Raithatha v Williamson (4 April 2012) where the High Court held that a bankrupt’s right to draw a pension was subject to an income payments order (“IPO”) even if the individual had yet to draw his pension. This judgment represented a significant departure from previous practice under the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999 which protected future pension rights from IPOs and distinguished them from pensions in payment. It also effectively allowed a trustee in bankruptcy to compel a bankrupt to draw pension against his wishes.
Many employers dread triggering debts under section 75 of the Pensions Act 1995 within their defined benefit pension scheme, but in some circumstances it simply cannot be avoided. Once a section 75 debt has been triggered it is important that the debt is calculated properly. The Actuary is required to calculate the difference between the value of the scheme's assets and the cost of purchasing annuities to secure all of the liabilities of the scheme. But what if there is a delay in calculating the debt? At which date is the Actuary required to ascertain the cost of bu