Background

Under the Pensions Act 2004 the Pensions Regulator (tPR) has the power to impose a financial support direction (FSD) requiring a company “connected or associated” with the sponsoring employer of a UK pension fund to provide financial support to the pension fund. To date tPR has used the power in insolvencies.

The Supreme Court has today ruled on the ranking of certain pension liabilities when issued to companies in administration or liquidation.

The Supreme Court yesterday issued its decision in the long-running case concerning financial support directions (“FSDs”) issued by the UK Pensions Regulator to various companies in the Nortel and Lehman groups. The case considered where a company's obligations under an FSD should rank in relation to its other debts if the company was insolvent when the FSD was issued.

Snapshot

The Supreme Court handed down its long-awaited judgment today in the Nortel/Lehman case on where a contribution notice (CN) or financial support direction (FSD) issued by the Pensions Regulator (TPR) on a company that is already in insolvency proceedings (eg administration) ranks in the order of priority of payment.

The Supreme Court handed down its decision yesterday on the combined appeals of Nortel GmbH (In Administration) ("Nortel") and Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (In Administration) ("Lehman Brothers") (together, the "Appellants") against the Pensions Regulator ("tPR").

Comment

The uncertainty continues. Over the past few years, the published guidance from HMRC has given rise to doubts as to the tax treatment of debt-for-equity swaps. Whether the current legislation has supported HMRC’s position is debatable but it now appears that HMRC would like to have the legislation amended to more closely reflect its views.

The Supreme Court handed down an important judgement last week in the case of BNY Corporate Trustee Services Limited v Eurosail - UK 2007 - 3BL PLC ("the Eurosail Case"), which needs to be considered by anyone who is a party to a contract which contains events of default relating to the insolvency of a party to that contract.

Background

The recent decision in BNY Corporate Trustee Services Limited v Eurosail - UK 2007 - 3BL PLC (Eurosail) has provided helpful guidance on the interpretation of the insolvency tests set out in section 123 of the Insolvency Act 1986. This guidance is not only relevant to companies with financial problems. The common practice of drafting contractual events of default by reference to section 123 means that it has significance to anyone who is creating or is party to contracts (whether finance documents or other commercial contracts) containing this type of provision.

The Court of Appeal has held that a settlement agreement, in which the defendant acknowledged that a debt was payable in full and agreed the mechanics and timing of payments, had the effect of excluding the defendant’s right of equitable set-off: IG Index Ltd v Ehrentreu [2013] EWCA Civ 95. The claimant was therefore entitled to summary judgment on the debt. The defendant however remained free to pursue his cross-claim for damages against the claimant.