OSCR report issued following investigation of benefits to employee on wind-up
Lazari GP Ltd v Jervis
When a company goes into administration, it benefits from a "moratorium" that prevents creditors taking legal and other proceedings against the company or its assets. The main purpose of the moratorium is to free an administrator's rescue attempts from the distractions of legal action from creditors.
On 22 June 2012, Almunia, Vice President of the European Commission responsible for Competition Policy gave a speech on competition policy in times of restructuring. He considered the challenges that the EU has been facing over the past weeks and months and how these challenges are shaped by the urgent need for economic restructuring and growth in Europe, the rapid globalisation of economic activity, and the fast evolving technological environment.
On 11 May 2012, the Commission announced that it has approved a 2009 restructuring plan for ING, following a General Court judgment which had partially annulled the Commission’s previous clearance decision. Therefore, the Commission has essentially confirmed its earlier decision and has decided to appeal the General Court judgment. It has also opened an in-depth State aid investigation into the subsequent amendments to the restructuring plan made by the Dutch State and ING. The Commission believes that the complexity of the issues justifies an in-depth analysis.
On 21 March 2012, following an in-depth investigation, the European Commission announced that it has approved the UK government’s plans to relieve the Royal Mail of excessive pension costs and to provide restructuring aid consisting of a debt reduction of £1,089 million. Read more.
The recent flurry of news reports regarding the administration of high street retail chains and the subsequent sale of parts of their businesses is perhaps an opportune time to flag up the renewed importance that the hypothec plays in Scottish property law.
By virtue of the hypothec, in insolvency, a landlord automatically obtains a fixed charge ranking on the proceeds of sale of the moveable goods of the tenant that are on the premises as at the point of insolvency, up to the value of any arrears of rent.
Agreements with administrators often contain provisions to the effect that any claim against the company in administration will rank only as an unsecured claim and not as an expense of the administration. Although such provisions are common, there has always been some doubt as to their efficacy.
Recently, the Court of Appeal upheld the High Court's decision in the Nortel Networks and Lehman Brothers disputes. The judgment confirms that liabilities under Financial Support Directions (FSDs) and Contribution Notices (CNs), which are issued by the Pensions Regulator, will rank ahead of almost all other claims when a company becomes insolvent. The discussions in the case focused on whether FSDs and CNs are classed as 'provable debts', expenses of the insolvency or, indeed, neither.
In Finnerty v Clark, the Court of Appeal has given guidance on what constitutes "good and sufficient" grounds for the removal of administrators. In this case, shareholders of a company in administration were also substantial creditors of the company. They wished the administrators to raise proceedings under Section 244 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (extortionate credit transactions) to challenge loan agreements that had been entered into by the company prior to administration.
The recent case of Stephen Petitioner offers some clarification regarding issues relating to the validity of appointment of administrators.
The Facts