In relation to the Great Lakes UK Limited Pension Plan a settlement was again reached before a full hearing with the Determination Panel could take place as reported by tPR on 13 July 2011.

A CVA was introduced as one of the rescue arrangements under the Insolvency Act 1986. It allows a company to settle unsecured debts by paying only a proportion of the amount owed, or to vary the terms on which it pays its unsecured creditors. Whilst a CVA only requires approval of a 75% majority of the creditors by value, it binds every unsecured creditor of the company, including any that voted against it or did not vote at all.

It is an age old problem for creditors who are faced with debtors who ask for more time to pay their debts. The Civil Procedural Rules (CPR) 14.9 and 14.10 allow for a debtor, following the admission of their debt, to request time to pay. It is open for a claimant to choose whether or not to accept a defendant’s proposals; if the claimant does not accept the defendant’s proposals, it is for the court to determine the time and rate of payment. The court’s discretion conferred by CPR 14.10 to extend time for payment has not, until now, been examined.

In the recent case of Pressure Coolers Ltd v (1) Mr J Molloy; (2) Maestro International Limited; and (3) Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the Employment Appeal Tribunal had to decide who should pay an employee’s basic award and notice pay following his unfair and wrongful dismissal after a “pre pack” TUPE transfer from his insolvent employer.

The Government is proposing to amend (for a twelfth time!) the Regulations under s75 Pensions Act 1995. The amendments would make it easier to vary the basis on which liability is shared between employers.

Background – the Regulations as they stand

The court has a limited discretion not to make a bankruptcy order where the debt is the subject of a statutory demand which has not been paid and is outstanding at the time of the bankruptcy petition hearing.

In the recent English Court of Appeal case of Rubin v Coote, the court allowed a liquidator to settle litigation without having obtained the agreement of all creditors to the compromise.

The Facts

The story of the Silentnight restructuring has featured in the press today. There have been calls for the Pensions Regulator to use its anti-avoidance powers under the Pensions Act 2004 to compel HIG Europe to pay more towards the considerable deficit of the Silentnight Pension Scheme, following the purchase of Silentnight out of administration by the private equity firm last Saturday. Earlier this year, Silentnight had failed to obtain the PPF's approval to a Creditors Voluntary Arrangement aimed at addressing its historic debt, including a pensions deficit of around £100m.

Introduction

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.'