The Court of Appeal in England has unanimously upheld a first instance decision that a Financial Support Direction (FSD) issued by the Pensions Regulator to an entity after it has commenced insolvency proceedings will rank as an expense of the administration, therefore affording it superpriority over floating charge holders and other unsecured creditors. This decision has significant implications for lenders to groups with UK defined benefit pension plans if any of their security is taken as a floating charge.

Background

German Parliament passes “Act for the Further Facilitation of the Restructuring of Companies“ (Gesetz zur weiteren Erleichterung der Sanierung von Unternehmen, ESUG)

This Client Alert addresses the impact on a customer of a futures commission merchant (FCM) with respect to his or her accounts held by that FCM prior to a filing for bankruptcy under Title 11 of the United States Code, 11 U.S.C. §§ 101-1532 (the Bankruptcy Code) by the FCM.

Summary

In line with the trend of the first reform to the Spanish Insolvency Act of 2003 carried out on March 2009 (the 2009 Reform), new amendments to the Spanish Insolvency Act (the SIA) were approved on 4 October 2011 (the Amendment). This Amendment will enter into force on 1 January 2012.

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.

The Court of Appeal handed down its judgment on 14 October 2011 unanimously upholding the first instance decision that a Financial Support Direction (FSD) issued by the Pensions Regulator to an entity after it has commenced insolvency proceedings will rank as an expense of the administration, therefore affording it super-priority over floating charge holders and other unsecured creditors. This decisions has significant implications for lenders to groups with UK defined benefit pension plans if any of their security is taken as a floating charge.

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

Sections 216 and 217 of the Insolvency Act impose draconian sanctions on directors of liquidated companies who reuse "prohibited names". Prohibited names are names that are identical to, or "suggest an association with", a company that has gone into liquidation and of which they were previously directors. The sanctions include criminal penalties and personal liability for debts. It has always been difficult for advisers to confidently advise directors whether a proposed name for a new company would be a prohibited name, given the vague nature of the phrase "suggest an association".