*Re MF Global UK Ltd (in special administration)

Company Administration. Chapters 7 and 7A (CASS 7 and 7A) of the Client Assets Sourcebook section of the Financial Services Authority Handbook created a requirement for investment firms to segregate money received from or held for their clients and hold it on trust for them. In certain circumstances, including the administration or liquidation of the firm, the money held for clients (client money) had to be distributed among the clients, pro rata according to their entitlements. The administrators of a company which carried out business as broker-dealers in financial markets, sought the court's direction as to whether the client's money entitlement in respect of its position was to be valued as at the primary pooling event or by reference to the liquidation value (the hindsight principle). The Chancery Division, Companies Court, held that the hindsight principle was not applicable to the determination of claims to client money for the purposes of a distribution under CASS 7A.

Phoenix Life Assurance Ltd v The Financial Services Authority

Guarantee Pension guarantee. The claimant company applied to court for a declaration that, under its single premium policy (the freedom bond), guaranteed minimum pension guarantees would be covered by the total benefits under the bond. The Chancery Division held that the claimant's interpretation of the freedom bond was correct.

*Lloyds TSB Foundation for Scotland v Lloyds Banking Group plc (Scotland)

Contract Construction. The Supreme Court allowed an appeal in Scottish proceedings by the Lloyds Banking Group plc in respect of the true construction of a deed entered into between the bank and a charitable foundation under which the bank covenanted to pay the foundation a percentage of its pre-tax profits. It held than an unrealised 'gain on acquisition' fell out of account despite a change in the law. The 'gain on acquisition' was held to be a wholly novel element which was included in the income statement by a change which had been neither foreseen nor foreseeable and which, had it been foreseen when the deeds were executed, would not have been accepted as part of the computation of profit or loss.

*Eckerle and others v Wickeder Westfalenstahl GmbH and another

Company Shareholders. The second defendant public company sought to re-register as a private limited company. The claimants, who claimed to be minority shareholders of the company but not registered shareholders, brought a claim against the defendants seeking an order for cancellation of the resolution for re-registration as a private company on the ground that they had an economic interest to exercise rights to claim under s98 of the . The defendants applied for summary judgment contending that the claimants had no standing to make the claim. The Chancery Division, in allowing the defendants' application, held that, on its true construction, s 98 of the Act did not apply to the holders of economic interest in shares and did not give unregistered minority shareholders a right to apply to the court for cancellation of a resolution to re-register a public company as a private limited company.

*7722656 Canada Inc (formerly trading as Swift Trade Inc) v Financial Services Authority

Financial services Financial Services Authority (FSA). The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (the tribunal) directed that the penalty of 8m imposed by the Financial Services Authority on a company, 7722656 Canada Inc (formerly trading as Swift Trade Inc) should remain, in circumstances where the tribunal had found that the allegations of market abuse in breach of of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 made against that company had been made out.

*Townrow v Financial Services Authority

Financial services Financial Services Authority (FSA). The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) struck out the reference made by a partner or sole principal in a firm in relation to the decision notice issued by the Regulatory Decisions Committee (RDC) of the Financial Services Authority (FSA) refusing to revoke or vary a prohibition order imposed on him by the FSA in respect of serious regulatory failings. The tribunal acceded to the FSA's application to strike out the reference on the ground that the reference had no conceivable prospect of success.

Cordle and another v Financial Services Authority

Financial services Financial Services Authority (FSA). The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) Financial Services upheld a decision of the respondent Financial Services Authority issuing a decision notice to the effect that the applicant's application for approval under of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 would be dismissed on the basis that the applicant was not a fit and proper person due to his dishonesty in a previous investigation and his failure to mention that investigation to the authority on his application form.

O'Donnell and another v Governor and Company of the Bank of Ireland

Bankruptcy Petition. The Chancery Division, in hearing the bankruptcy petitions of two Irish citizens, held that, despite their move to England, their centre of main interests had been in Ireland at the time that the petitions had been presented. Accordingly, their applications were dismissed.

Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills v Potiwal

Estoppel Res judicata. The Secretary of State sought the disqualification of a company director on the grounds of his company's fraudulent evasion of VAT. In response, the director denied knowledge of the company's fraud. The Secretary of State sought to strike out those denials as they were inconsistent with a judgment of the United Kingdom VAT & Duties Tribunal. The Companies Court held that the defendant was not estopped per rem judicatam from denying that he had the requisite knowledge, but the cost to the taxpayer made the re-litigation of the issue manifestly unfair and the re-litigation would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

FCL (London) Ltd v Voice

Contract Construction. An accountant sought payment of fees under an oral agreement with his client. The parties disputed the terms of the agreement concerning the fees. The Queen's Bench Division, after rejecting the accountant's evidence, found that the client's version was much more commercial. Accordingly, the accountant had been overpaid.