Commercial Agreements -v- Commercial Reality: Supreme Court further develops principles of contractual interpretation?

Rainy Sky S.A. and others v Kookmin Bank [2011] UKSC 50

Summary

The Supreme Court handed down its judgment in relation to the client money application in the matter of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (LBIE). The judgment has a number of implications for firms who hold client money, and for firms who hold money with banks and other firms as clients themselves. The complicated and controversial nature of the appeal is reflected in the sharply opposing opinions of the Lords in relation to two of the three issues considered.

On 29 February, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom handed down its judgment on the treatment of client money that had not been segregated, or was improperly segregated, as at the date Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (“LBIE”) entered administration. The Supreme Court found that:

The courts and FOS are now headed down very different paths in their approach to credit crunch losses suffered by clients of regulated firms. While FOS has all but abandoned the general law of causation in its approach to cases of consumer detriment, we have observed how the courts have held again and again that the general law of causation applies to mis-selling claims.

Regulation 7 of TUPE states that a dismissal will be automatically unfair if the main reason for dismissal is the transfer itself, or a reason connected with the transfer that is not an economic, technical or organisational reason entailing changes in the workforce (‘ETO reason’). This provision has caused some uncertainty where employees are dismissed by an administrator in order to make a business more attractive to a prospective (but as yet unknown) purchaser.

The TUPE Regulations contain some provisions designed to make struggling businesses more attractive to prospective purchasers. TUPE will not apply to transfer employees, and dismissals will not be automatically unfair, where insolvency proceedings have been instituted with a view to liquidation of assets (Regulation 8(7)). However, TUPE will apply to insolvency proceedings which do not aim to liquidate assets, and employees will have unfair dismissal protection (Regulation 8(8)).

Clarification on the jurisdiction of the English courts to sanction schemes of arrangement for overseas companies

Providing further evidence that schemes of arrangement (“schemes”) are an increasingly useful tool in the restructuring of overseas companies, on 20 January 2012, the High Court sanctioned a scheme proposed by PrimaCom Holding GmbH (“PrimaCom”), a German incorporated company, with its centre of main interests (or “COMI”) in Germany and whose affected creditors were domiciled outside the UK.

On 29 November 2011, the Court of Appeal ruled for the dismissal of appeals lodged by Digital Satellite Warranty Cover Limited (DSWC) and Bernard Freeman and Michael Sullivan, trading as Satellite Services (SS), in respect of winding-up orders previously secured by the Financial Services Authority (FSA) against these companies.

The Court of Appeal has issued further guidance on the thorny issue of the application of the TUPE Regulations to administration proceedings.  While many practitioners will feel that the decisions are not helpful in trying to achieve business sales in what is already a challenging market, insolvency practitioners (IPs) nonetheless need to be aware of the clarity that these cases have brought. The key points to note are:

In its recent decision in Re Kaupthing Singer and Friedlander^[1], the Supreme Court clarifies the interrelationship between the rule against double proof and the rule in Cherry v Boultbee. The Court considered in particular whether the rule in Cherry v Boultbee is (1) compatible with the principle against double proof, and (2) limited to seeking an indemnity in respect of sums actually paid.

Background