Where does liability under a Pensions Regulator Contribution Notice rank in an Employer's insolvency?

In recent years, several foreign companies have used the English law scheme of arrangement as a flexible restructuring method to compromise creditor claims.  The decision of the High Court in the latest of these cases, that of the German company Rodenstock GmbH, clarifies that an English court will accept jurisdiction where the only connection to England is that the company’s finance documents were governed by English law.

One of the many issues which arose from the collapse of Lehman Brothers was whether “flip provisions”, which reverse a swap counterparty’s priority in the order of payment on insolvency, were invalid on the basis that they contravened the anti-deprivation principle.  This is a long-established common law principle which seeks to prevent an insolvent party from arranging its affairs to frustrate the legitimate claims of creditors.

In its recent decision in Belmont Park Investments PTY Ltd v BNY Corporate trustee Services Ltd and Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc,[1] the Supreme Court ruled in favour of investors, clarifying the limits of the anti-deprivation rule and holding that a commercially sensible transaction entered into in good faith and without the intention to evade insolvency laws should not infringe the anti-deprivation rule.

Background

On 5 October 2011 Justice Barrett of the Supreme Court of NSW handed down a decision in Centro Retail Limited and Centro MCS Manager Limited in its capacity as Responsible Entity of the Centro Retail Trust [2011] NSWSC 1175 (“Centro”) where he found that the responsible entity of Centro Retail Trust would be justified in modifying the constitution of the trust without unitholder approval to a insert a provision permitting the issue of units at a price different to that provided for by the pre-existing provisions.

HMRC is leading an increasingly tough stance against owners of businesses that have failed to pay their taxes before going bankrupt, says City law firm Wedlake Bell.

Figures from the Insolvency Service reveal that in the last year Bankruptcy Restriction Orders (or equivalent undertakings) were obtained against 443 bankrupts because of neglect of their business - a majority of which were alleged to have consistently failed to pay taxes to HMRC. This was an increase of 21% on last year and concern actions taken against sole traders and partnerships (Year ending March 31).

Over the past few months there have been a number of insurance portfolio transfers and a winding up of a general insurer.  Various judges of the Federal Court have considered aspects of the Insurance Act (Cth) 1973.

Portfolio transfers

There have been two scheme transfers of insurance portfolios from Australian branches of overseas insurers to Australian subsidiaries.  While objections to the transfers were raised, the Federal Court confirmed the schemes.

Amaca Pty Ltd v McGrath & Anor as liquidators of HIH Underwriting and Insurance (Australia) Pty Ltd [2011] NSWSC 90

In the recent case of BNY Corporate v Eurosail[1], the Court of Appeal for the first time considered how the 'balance sheet' test of corporate insolvency in section 123(2) Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) should be applied.

Section 123(2) IA 1986 provides:-

'A company is also deemed unable to pay its debts if it is proved to the satisfaction of the court that the value of the company's assets is less than the amount of its liabilities, taking into account its contingent and prospective liabilities.'

Background

Administration

Administration is a procedure by which a company can be reorganised and its assets realised whilst being protected by a moratorium from actions brought by creditors (explained below).  

Objectives

A company can be put into administration if the objectives of administration are likely to be achieved. These are set out in the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “Act”)4 as: