Pension Schemes Bill – Additional hurdle for English law restructurings?

The intention was that the Pension Schemes Bill would enhance the Pensions Regulator’s powers to respond earlier when employers fail to take their pension responsibilities seriously, targeting “reckless bosses who plunder people’s pension pots”. However, the new criminal offences proposed as part of the Bill may inadvertently create additional hurdles for English law restructurings, making them potentially more expensive and difficult.

Background

The aim of the compensation order regime, to make directors financially account for the consequences of their unfit conduct, applies to directors’ conduct after 1 October 2015 and gives the Secretary of State (“SoS”) the power to apply for a compensation order against a director who is either subject to a disqualification order or who has given a disqualification undertaking and the conduct of that person has caused loss to one or more creditors of the insolvent company.

Following an expedited trial, the High Court has rejected an application brought by a group of landlords known as the Combined Property Control Group (“CPC”) to challenge the company voluntary arrangement (“CVA”) proposed by Debenhams Retail Limited (“Debenhams”).

CPC challenged the CVA on five grounds. The judge in the case, Mr Justice Norris, held that four of the five grounds failed and directed certain “Forfeiture Restraint Provisions” be removed from the CVA as a result of the fifth.

It is a defence to an unfair preference claim to show there were no reasonable grounds to suspect the insolvency of the debtor company.

Referred to as the ‘good faith defence’, the creditor has the onus of establishing the defence contained in section 588FG(2) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

Suspicion of insolvency

The courts have identified the following principles with respect to the good faith defence:

In the recent case of 1st Fleet Pty Ltd (in liquidation), the Court clarified the information disclosure obligations of external administrators in the Insolvency Practice Schedule (Corporations) (IPSC) and Insolvency Practice Rules (Corporations) 2016 (Rules).

There is only a short time period for compliance, and there can be cost consequences for non compliance.

In business it is not uncommon for a director of a company to be owed money by that company.

If the commercial relationship breaks down, the director may think it is an option to serve a creditor’s statutory demand on the debtor company.

However, recent court decisions demonstrate that issuing a creditor’s statutory demand is not a sure fire method of obtaining payment where the director is owed the debt personally or is a director of both the creditor and debtor companies.

Cases where statutory demands have been successfully challenged

In the recent court decision of Trenfield v HAG Import Corporation (Australia) Pty Ltd [2018] QDC 107, the liquidators recovered unfair preferences from a retention of title creditor who argued it was a secured creditor.

The issues

In the recent decision of Heavy Plant Leasing [2018] NSWSC 707, a creditor successfully defended an unfair preference claim by establishing it did not have reasonable grounds to suspect the insolvency of the debtor company, who was a subcontractor in the earth moving business.

The most common way of defending a liquidator’s unfair preferences claim is to rely upon section 588FG(2) of the Corporations Act 2001(Cth); commonly called the ‘good faith defence’.

Commonly, a creditor being sued by a liquidator to refund an alleged unfair preference is owed money by the company in liquidation.

Liquidators argue that under section 553(c)(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Act) a creditor is not able to set-off the outstanding indebtedness owed by the company to the creditor to reduce any liability of the creditor to refund any unfair preference. Similar arguments are made by liquidators in relation to insolvent trading claims.

A snapshot of the court decisions

Just because a liquidator asserts you have received an unfair preference, does not necessarily mean you have or that there are no potential defences available to you.