Introduction

Today, the UK Supreme Court considered for the first time the existence, content and engagement of the so-called “creditor duty”: the alleged duty of a company’s directors to consider, or to act in accordance with, the interests of the company’s creditors when the company becomes insolvent, or when it approaches, or is at real risk of, insolvency.

New legislation ushers in the largest change in the UK’s corporate insolvency regime in over 20 years and raises questions for pension schemes.

Fast-tracked through Parliament in the wake of the Covid-19 emergency, the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 came into force on 26 June 2020. It brings in some temporary measures designed to support businesses affected by the pandemic and changes that have been expected for a while. We look at five aspects of the Act that the trustees and employers of UK pension schemes will need to know about.

The High Court in London gave judgment on Friday, 3 July 2020 on the relative ranking of over $10 billion of subordinated liabilities in the administrations of two entities in the Lehman Brothers group.

The Pension Protection Fund has published updated general guidance on insolvency and the assessment period. This guidance is intended to help Insolvency Practitioners (IPs) to understand what they should do if a DB scheme employer suffers an insolvency event and their role and responsibilities during an assessment period.

Key points and actions for IPs

The guidance confirms a number of key points, including:

The Pension Protection Fund (PPF) has published guidance on company voluntary arrangements (CVAs), setting out the issues that it expects to be considered and addressed. The new guidance will be relevant to companies who are considering a CVA which could affect a DB pension scheme, and to advisers working with those companies or with pension scheme trustees.

The recent decisions in Re MF Global UK Ltd and Re Omni Trustees Ltd give conflicting views as to whether section 236 of the Insolvency Act 1986 has extra-territorial effect. In this article, we look at the reasoning in the two judgments and discuss a possible further argument for extra-territorial effect.

The conflicting rulings on section 236