In Blight v Brewster [2012] EWHC 165 (Ch) the High Court allowed a creditor to enforce his judgment debt against a debtor's pension funds. The court followed a 2011 Privy Council case (Tasarruf Mevduati Sinorta Fonu v Merrill Lynch Bank and Trust Company & ors) in holding that it had jurisdiction to do so under section 37 of the Senior Courts Act 1981. Section 37 provides that the court may appoint a receiver in all cases in which it appears to the court to be just and convenient to do so.
Introduction
Airport and air navigation charges
EU Emissions Trading Scheme EU Emissions Trading Scheme
Comment
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
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: