English courts recognise that shareholders hold a separate legal personality from the body corporate they own a stake in and will only go behind the corporate veil in limited circumstances. In the recent case of Onur Air Taşimacilik AŞ v Goldtrail Travel Ltd (In Liquidation) 1 , the Court of Appeal considered whether the financial means of the appellant’s wealthy controlling shareholder could be taken into account when making an order that the appellant had to make a substantial payment into court as a condition of being able to pursue its appeal.

In The Joint and Several Liquidators of QQ Club Limited (in liquidation) v. Golden Year Limited (HCCW 245/2011, 9 April 2013) (QQ Club), the Court of First Instance held that a liquidator's costs in pursuing an avoidance claim are "fees and expenses properly incurred in preserving, realizing or getting in the assets", and are payable out of the company's assets in priority to all other payments prescribed in rule 179 of the Companies (Winding-up) Rules. In reaching this conclusion, the court distinguished the English Court of Appeal's decision in Lewis v.

In the current economic climate, security for payment is key. Although banks have started to lend money again, they remain cautious and those construction firms with weak balance sheets remain at risk of insolvency. This article discusses five pitfalls in the context of some relevant case-law and devices to protect against these.

Restructuring & Insolvency
United Kingdom
Recovery and Resolution of Central Clearing Counterparties: AIMA’s Proposals

On 25 July 2014 and 17 September 2014 respectively, Justice Brereton of the Supreme Court of NSW delivered two related judgments in Re AAA Financial Intelligence Ltd (in liquidation) andRe AAA Financial Intelligence Ltd (in liquidation) (No 2). The decisions deal with the evergreen topic of Liquidator remuneration and expenses.

Importantly, in fixing the Liquidators' remuneration, Justice Brereton adopted a "value" focussed approach, and discussed the relevance of considering matters beyond simply time spent multiplied by fixed hourly rates. 

The PPF Ombudsman has rejected an appeal by a pension scheme member which was based on the premise that the PPF compensation cap contravened European law (in this case the Insolvency Directive). The Insolvency Directive requires member states to take "necessary measures" to ensure protection of members' occupational retirement benefits upon the insolvency of an employer. 

The Court of Appeal has ruled that the trustees of two occupational defined benefit (DB) schemes can use a particular mechanism, known as a Headway agreement, to maximise the amount of s.75 debt payable by the employers.

In the case of Sarjeant and others v Rigid Group Ltd, both schemes commenced winding up in 2000. No insolvency event had occurred before the winding up in either case. The applicable legislation at the relevant time required the s.75 debt to be calculated on the MFR basis.

On 7 January 2013, the Regulator published a report detailing its decision to give clearance to entities in the UK Coal Group to pursue a restructuring plan agreed on by UK Coal's shareholders in November 2012.

The Pensions Regulator (the "Regulator") has published a statement to help banking, insolvency and restructuring professionals understand its approach to its Financial Support Direction ("FSD") powers in insolvency situations.

In October 2009 the Greek airline, Olympic Airlines SA ("OA"), entered "special liquidation" in Greece after the European Commission ordered it to repay illegal state aid from the Greek Government. OA employed about 27 employees in the UK, who participated in an occupational pension scheme. In June 2010 OA's liquidator informed the scheme's trustees that the UK employees' employment would be terminated and that pension contributions would cease from July 2010.