According to a recent judgment in the English High Court, Financial Support Directions ("FSDs") issued by the Pensions Regulator ("the Regulator") against companies in administration are to be treated as expenses of the administration. This means that they are to rank ahead of preferential and unsecured creditors and, indeed, perhaps ahead of the remuneration of the administrators themselves.
Since 2003, the procedure for appointing administrators has largely consisted of filing simple forms with a court. What could be easier? A recent case has, however, highlighted the dangers of making errors in the filing process and serves as a timely warning to everyone involved in insolvency and security enforcement work.
In Kaupthing Capital Partners II Master LP Inc, the English courts ruled that an appointment of administrators was invalid as the incorrect form had been used for the appointment.
The recent sale of the bulk of Connaught's failed social housing group has received a lot of positive press attention of late, due largely to the number of jobs the deal is reported to have saved.
The sale appears to have occurred within days of Connaught going into administration. While there has been no suggestion that the deal was effected as a "pre-pack", the speed with which the sale was carried out echoes the most prominent feature of true pre-pack deals.
In our e-update of 20 January 2010, we looked at a decision of the English courts from December 2009 in which it was decided that, in England, the Administrators of a tenant company are bound to account to the landlord of premises for rent due in relation to the period during which those premises are being used in connection with the administration, and that the rent is to be paid as an expense of the administration.
A commercial landlord should never assume that, if his tenant goes into administration or liquidation, he will not be able to obtain rent from the administrator or liquidator in respect of the period following appointment of the administrator or liquidator.
In the current economic climate, disputes, particularly payment disputes, are rife. Consider the following scenario. You arrive at work early on Monday morning, to discover that the supplier with whom you have been having a long-running but relatively minor dispute over payment, has secured a winding up order against your company and appointment of a liquidator from the court. Or, equally distressing, a sheriff officer appears at your door with another form of court order in his hand - an interdict - stopping you from carrying out a key part of your business activities.
One of the more interesting recent appointments in which MacRoberts have been acting relates to the administration of Livingston Football Club Limited ("Livingston") where we acted for Donnie McGruther of Mazars. Donnie was interim manager and subsequently administrator of Livingston.
In a recent interesting Scottish case, HSBC Bank plc, Re an Order to wind up Kirkbride Investment Limited [2009 Scot CS CSOH 147], the Court of Session granted an application to wind up an overseas company and appoint Joint Provisional Liquidators. The company, registered in Gibraltar, was involved in property development in Scotland with the secured lending provided by the Bank.
The Facts
The Office of Fair Trading ("OFT") has announced that it will conduct a review of the corporate insolvency market in the UK. Its aim is to assess the level of competition in the UK market and ensure that the market itself is working well for consumers.
On 23 November a new form of diligence will be created which allows creditors to seize money belonging to a debtor in satisfaction of a debt.
In principle, all assets owned by a debtor should be susceptible to enforcement of a debt. But at present, creditors are unable to take diligence against cash owned by a debtor. To rectify this anomaly, a special category of diligence - money attachment - has been introduced by Part 8 of the Bankruptcy and Diligence etc. (Scotland) Act 2007.
When can a money attachment be used?