Unless you have been hiding in an igloo in Antarctica for the last year you could not possibly have missed the media furore over the huge pension liabilities of eminent companies that have become insolvent. BHS, a venerable British retailer, is the most high profile after recently entering administration with an estimated pensions deficit of £571m.
The interest rate mis-selling scandal took another twist recently when a landmark legal case was dismissed by the High Court. Had the case been successful it would have challenged the banks’ £2.1bn compensation scheme set-up to settle inappropriate interest rate swaps – however the decision only brings temporary relief for the banks.
Background
During the previous UK government’s tenure, in March 2015 a call for evidence was launched to understand better the employee consultation process when an employer faces insolvency, restructure or other form of company rescue (Call for Evidence on Collective Redundancy Consultation for Employers facing Insolvency).
The call for evidence sought views on the following areas:
Further to the review of pre-pack administration sales (“pre-packs”) by Teresa Graham CBE last year (the findings of which were published in the “Graham Report” and discussed in one of our earlier blogs,Change in Sight for UK Pre-pack Administration Regulation), the key recommendations have now been implemented in order to improve fairness and transparency especially where a pre-pack sale occurs to a connected party.
New guidance from the Pension Protection Fund (PPF) regarding pre-packaged administrations (pre-packs) outlines their approach to pre-packs when the same insolvency practitioner (IP) proposes to continue as office holder in any subsequent liquidation or company voluntary arrangement (CVA).
A recent English High Court decision has further clarified the position on what amounts to an “abuse of process” when it comes to determining the motive behind the presentation of a winding up petition by a creditor. The High Court has ruled that only where a petition is issued for a purpose other than to ensure the equitable winding-up of a debtor company can it be considered an “abuse of process”, and goes on to outline what may constitute such an abuse.
The UK’s Pension Protection Fund (PPF) is about to publish new guidelines to reflect their increased focus on the approval of Insolvency Practitioner’s (IPs) fees. The guidelines require IPs to provide more regular detail of accruing and anticipated costs to the PPF when they are appointed over employers where Defined Benefit (Final Salary) pension schemes are significant creditors. More specifically IPs will now be required to provide a more detailed explanation of how their proposed remuneration reflects the value provided to creditors.
In the recent case of Wilson (as liquidator of 375 Live Ltd) v SMC Properties Limited, the English High Court reviewed the policy behind section 127 Insolvency Act 1986 (“the Act”) and the underlying principles that apply to validation order applications.
The recent successful appeal in Brooks and another (Joint Liquidators of Robin Hood Centre plc in liquidation) v Armstrong and another [2016] EWHC 2893 (Ch), [2016] All ER (D) 117 (Nov) has clarified and highlighted the complexities of bringing a wrongful trading claim and the importance of correctly quantifying losses for which directors can be made personally liable under section 214 and/or 246Z of the Insolvency Act 1986 (“the Act”).
The High Court has recently demonstrated its right to exercise discretion as to whether an administration order should be made in relation to a company. In Rowntree Ventures v Oak Property Partners Limited, even though the companies were unable to pay their debts and where the statutory purpose of administration was likely to be achieved, the Court exercised its commercial judgment in determining that it was premature to make an administration order.
Background