The Pension Schemes Bill promised in the Queen’s Speech has been introduced into Parliament. At nearly 200 pages the Bill is comprehensive, wide-ranging and ticks many of the boxes on the Pensions Regulator’s wish list. It substantially reflects the Bill which briefly appeared in the autumn: this time, it seems likely to make it to the statute book. The Bill as drafted has potentially far-reaching implications, if it is passed substantially in its current form.

Transactions and restructuring

The Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) has held once again that the Insolvency Directive does not require member states to put measures in place to fully fund lost pension rights on the insolvency of an employer. This conclusion is contrary to some reporting in the pensions press earlier today.

Judge Barber has considered the order of priority of payments in an administration and - more specifically - whether the Lundy Granite principle applies to both the rent payable once a company has gone into administration, and to the “top up” obligation requiring the company to replenish a rent deposit, where a landlord had drawn down on the deposit against unpaid rent (Re London Bridge Entertainment Partners LLP (in administration) [2019] EWHC 2932 (CH)).

The Rules

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.

In Carrello,^[1] the Federal Court granted a warrant under section 530C of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Act) allowing the liquidator of Drilling Australia Pty Ltd (the Company) to search and seize property, books and records located in storage containers belonging to the Company.

A recent TCC decision has provided further guidance on a liquidator’s options when seeking payments owed to insolvent companies through adjudication and the interplay with the Insolvency Rules. The decision establishes an exception to the general principle that such adjudication proceedings will not be enforced (and are liable to be injuncted) where the responding party has a cross-claim.

The Federal Court has considered whether a deed of company arrangement (DoCA) binds a regulator. The case involved an application by the Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO) for leave to proceed against a company in liquidation. The Court rejected the company’s argument that the FWO’s claims were extinguished by the DoCA and granted the FWO leave to pursue the claim. The outcome of the proceedings may impact the types of, and circumstances in which, claims by a regulator will not be extinguished by a DoCA.

In a decision of the Federal Court handed down on 18 October 2019 in Masters v Lombe (Liquidator); In the Matter of Babcock & Brown Limited (In Liquidation) [2019] FCA 1720, Foster J held that Babcock & Brown Limited (BBL) did not breach the continuous disclosure obligations in the Corporations Act 2001 and the ASX Listing Rules.

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.

The CVA challenge

The landlords’ claim against the Debenhams CVA was put forward on five grounds:

1. Future rent is not a “debt” and so the landlords are not creditors, such that the CVA cannot bind them

REJECTED: The definition of “debt” is broad enough to include pecuniary contingent liabilities, such as future rent.

2. A CVA cannot operate to reduce rent payable under leases: it is automatically unfairly prejudicial