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

The new bankruptcy provisions contained in the Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2011 were commenced yesterday. The Act has been in force since 2 August.

The new provisions allow for automatic discharge on the 12th anniversary of a bankruptcy adjudication order and a reduction in the period for application for discharge from bankruptcy to five years from 12 years.

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

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).

The Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2011 was signed into law by the President on 2 August 2011.  The Act provides for certain provisions, concerning private security services, bankruptcy and family mediation services, to come into operation on such days as the Minister for Justice and Equality, by order, appoints. All other provisions of the Act came into force on 2 August.

The Act introduces a number of important reforms across a broad range of areas, including:

In brief

A recent decision by the New South Wales Court of Appeal in Buzzle Operations Pty Ltd (in liq) –v- Apple Computer Australia Pty Ltd [2011] NSWCA 109 provides useful guidance on the key aspects of shadow directorships and to what extent advices can be given by an interested party such as a financial accountant or a lender to a debtor without that interested party falling within the definition of "shadow director".

Background

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.'

On 25 March 2011 the High Court delivered a judgment concluding that a notice of crystallisation served by a bank (who held fixed and floating charges) on three corporate borrowers shortly before they were placed into liquidation did not alter the order of priorities.

On 22 February the European Council published guidelines for the rescue and restructuring of financial institutions. The objective of the initiative is to maintain a level playing field between member states granting state aid measures for the rescue and/or restructuring of a financial institution in difficulty.

The Law Reform Commission (LRC) launched its Report on Personal Debt Management and Debt Enforcement, on 16 December 2010, at its Annual Conference. The Report makes 200 recommendations for reform, and also contains a draft Personal Insolvency Bill. Reform of personal debt law must be introduced next year to comply with the Government's agreement with the International Monetary Fund and the European Central Bank.