Summary
On 24 July 2013, the Supreme Court handed down its long-awaited judgment in the Nortel/Lehman case: Re Nortel Companies [2013] UKSC 52. The Court looked at the position where a contribution notice (CN) or financial support direction (FSD) was issued by the Pensions Regulator (TPR) on a company that is already in insolvency proceedings in England (eg administration). How does the relevant obligation rank in the order of priority of payment?
Snapshot
The Supreme Court handed down its long-awaited judgment today in the Nortel/Lehman case on where a contribution notice (CN) or financial support direction (FSD) issued by the Pensions Regulator (TPR) on a company that is already in insolvency proceedings (eg administration) ranks in the order of priority of payment.
Summary
The Court of Appeal’s judgment in The Trustees of the Olympic Airlines SA Pension & Life Insurance Scheme v Olympic Airlines SA [2013] EWCA Civ 643 has clarified what is required to fall within the definition of an ‘establishment’ for the purposes of the EC Insolvency Regulation (the Insolvency Regulation).
Prior to the 2009 amendments (the “Amendments”) to the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (the “CCAA”),1 courts exercising jurisdiction under that statute could, in the appropriate circumstances, approve “roll up” debtor in possession (“DIP”) financing arrangements. While it can take different forms, in essence, a “roll up” DIP loan facility is an arrangement whereby an existing lender refinances or repays its pre-filing loan by way of borrowings under the new DIP loan facility. The priority status of the charge granted by the court to secure the DIP