Nearly three years after the High Court decision on the case of BNY Corporate Trustee Services Ltd v Eurosail UK 2007 – 3BL PLC and others was handed down, the case has run its course in the Supreme Court. The case, which considers the correct interpretation of the balance-sheet insolvency test in section 123(2) of the Insolvency Act 1986, is of importance to insolvency practitioners, financial institutions, legal advisers, company directors and companies.
Court of Appeal decision
The Pensions Regulator (the “Regulator”) has published a statement setting out its approach to the issuing of financial support directions (“FSDs”) in insolvency situations. The statement is designed to calm fears following the decision in the joined Nortel and Lehman cases that the “super priority” of FSDs could have a negative impact on the corporate rescue and lending industries.
Background
The Pensions Regulator has issued a statement setting out its approach to Financial Support Directions in insolvency situations. It follows the Court of Appeal's decision in Bloom v The Pensions Regulator (Nortel) in October 2011 that a liability arising from a Financial Support Direction (FSD), or a contribution notice (CN), issued to a company in administration or liquidation will, except in very limited circumstances, amount to an expense of that administration or liquidation. As such, it will rank very highly in the payment priority order, in particular rank
Introduction
Hildyard J’s recent sanctioning of the scheme of arrangement proposed by PrimaCom Holding GmbH (‘’PrimaCom’’), a German incorporated company whose creditors were domiciled outside of the UK, has reaffirmed the extra-territorial jurisdiction of the English courts in respect of schemes of arrangement and confirmed their status as a useful instrument for foreign companies looking to restructure1.
The process
The Court of Appeal has confirmed that the costs of complying with Financial Support Directions (“FSDs”) proposed to be issued to certain Nortel and Lehman companies by the Pensions Regulator (“TPR”) qualify as “super priority” administration expenses, payable in priority to unsecured creditors, floating charge holders and the administrators’ own fees.
The question
The story of the restructuring of carpet-maker, Brintons has featured in the press recently, with emphasis on the role of Carlyle, one of the world's biggest private equity firms. The facts are similar to the Silentnight pre-pack which we featured in a previous bulletin. In each case, the Pensions Regulator is said to be considering using its anti-avoidance powers under the Pensions Act 2004 to compel senior debt holders to pay towards the deficit of the defined benefit pension scheme operated by the company.
In the much anticipated decision of Belmont Park Investments PTY Limited v BNY Corporate Trustee Services Limited and Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc [2011] UKSC 38 the Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed the appeal of Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc (“LBSF”) and in so doing provided clarification as to the scope and application of the anti-deprivation rule (the “Rule”).
The Pensions Regulator announced this week that it will not pursue action to impose a Financial Support Direction against US company, Chemtura Corporation and members of its group after a funding settlement, involving the payment of expedited contributions to the pension scheme of its UK subsidiary, was reached with the scheme's trustees.
The story of the Silentnight restructuring has featured in the press today. There have been calls for the Pensions Regulator to use its anti-avoidance powers under the Pensions Act 2004 to compel HIG Europe to pay more towards the considerable deficit of the Silentnight Pension Scheme, following the purchase of Silentnight out of administration by the private equity firm last Saturday. Earlier this year, Silentnight had failed to obtain the PPF's approval to a Creditors Voluntary Arrangement aimed at addressing its historic debt, including a pensions deficit of around £100m.
BNY Corporate Trustee Services Limited v Eurosail-UK 2007-3BL Plc & others [2011] EWCA Civ 227
The Court of Appeal has allowed companies around the country to breathe a solvent sigh of relief, as it has held that the so-called “balance sheet” test of insolvency in s123(2) Insolvency Act 1996 is intended to apply where a company has reached a “point of no return” rather than being used as a “mechanistic, even artificial, reason for permitting a creditor to present a petition to wind up a company”.