In related Nortel and Lehman Brothers cases, the UK Supreme Court ruled in July that Financial Support Directions ("FSDs") and Contribution Notices ("CNs") under the Pensions Act 2004 rank as provable debts if issued against insolvent targets.

Overturning the decisions of Mr Justice Briggs and the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court has ruled that such FSD or CN liabilities are not administration or liquidation expenses. It has also confirmed that they do not rank behind other provable debts (the option which had become known as the 'black hole').

A new Statement of Insolvency Practice relating to pre-packaged sales in Administration has been issued and has effect from 1 November 2013.

This provides for earlier notification to creditors of the sale and the justification for it and provides a more extensive list of information that must be included.

The main changes are:

The High Court has sanctioned a scheme of arrangement between a Vietnamese company and certain of its creditors; the first time a Vietnamese company has taken advantage of this restructuring process in England.

Background

The latest Court judgment arising from the MF Global UK Ltd ("MF Global") insolvency provides further clarity on how client money entitlements under the FCA's client money rules ("CASS") should be assessed, but is potentially superseded by a key proposal in the FCA's July 2013 Consultation Paper.  In MF Global UK Ltd (No 4) (in special administration); Heis and others v Attestor Value Master Fund LP and another [2013] EWHC 2556 the Court was asked to determine to what extent, an

The Court of Session has reiterated that balancing of accounts in bankruptcy may be relied upon by a defender in enforcement proceedings to successfully resist enforcement of an adjudicator's award. See Richard Heis & others as joint administrators of Connaught Partnerships Ltd (in administration) v. Perth & Kinross Council.

The recent decision of Re Bluecrest Mercantile BV saw the High Court stay proceedings for summary judgment in respect of contract debts to allow the formulation of proposals for a scheme of arrangement - is this likely to be become common practice, or is it a one-off?

The background

Schemes of arrangement (“schemes”) have become the restructuring tool of choice for English companies or overseas companies that have English law-governed debts.

Overturning the High Court and Court of Appeal decisions in Bloom and Others v The Pensions Regulator and Others, the Supreme Court has ruled that financial support directions (FSD)and contribution notices (CN) issued by The Pensions Regulator in insolvencies create “provable debts” which should be given unsecured, non-preferential, creditor ranking.

The UK’s Insolvency Act 1986 sets out in s.123 various tests to determine whether a company should be deemed unable to pay its debts. The relevance of these tests to distressed companies is obvious: deciding as they do when it is appropriate to seek an administration order or present a winding up petition. They also help determine directors’ duties, antecedent transactions and issues such as wrongful and fraudulent trading.

The recentThomas Cook refinancing and Cortefiel scheme of arrangement offer contrasting examples to investors of the risks and rewards of adopting a hold-out position in complex multijurisdictional restructurings.