The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill has been described as an “extraordinary Bill for extraordinary times” . First published on 20 May 2020, it has had a rapid passage through the UK parliamentary process, so it could become law (an Act of Parliament) by the end of June. At the time of writing, the Bill is almost at the end of its parliamentary journey with only one final stage outstanding - a return to the House of Commons for a consideration of amendments - before it is sent for Royal Assent and becomes law.

Claims held by employees of a Chapter 11 debtor based on “restricted stock units (‘RSUs’) … must be subordinated [under Bankruptcy Code § 510(b)] to the claims of general creditors because … (i) RSUs are securities, (ii) the claimants acquired them in a purchase, and (iii) the claims for damages arise from those purchases or the asserted rescissions thereof,” held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on May 4, 2017. In re Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 7920, *6 (2d Cir. May 4, 2017).

“Equitable mootness” prevented the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit from “unravel[ing] the entire Plan, … forc[ing] the City [Detroit] back into emergency oversight, and requir[ing] a wholesale recreation of the vast and complex web of negotiated settlements and agreements.” In re City of Detroit, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 17774, *14, *17 (6th Cir. Oct. 3, 2016) (2-1).

On July 9, 2012, Judge Peter J. Walsh of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware issued a memorandum opinion (the "Opinion"), in the Blitz U.S.A. bankruptcy proceeding addressing whether an employee bonus plan is a transaction made in the ordinary course of business under 11 U.S.C.

When talking about mergers, acquisitions and maybe even liquidations, retirement plans can sometimes get lost in the shuffle.  Asset purchases that result in the liquidation of the seller company, or acquisitions of assets by buyers, can create problems over legacy retirement plans.  These "orphan" plans just don't disappear and they have to be dealt with properly.

The Pension Protection Fund (PPF) is responsible for paying compensation to members of defined benefit occupational pension schemes where the scheme is in deficit on a PPF funding basis and the employer becomes insolvent. One of the criteria that must be satisfied by a scheme to enter the PPF is that the participating employer(s) suffer a "qualifying insolvency event" (QIE).

Pension Protection Fund: valuation assumptions

The PPF has consulted on changing the assumptions used for section 143 valuations (used for schemes  in assessment periods) and section 179 valuations (used when setting a scheme's risk-based levy).   The PPF expects that the proposed changes would increase section 143 and section 179 liabilities by  just under 4% and would potentially lead to a small increase in the number of schemes transferring  to the PPF.

Pension Protection Fund: insolvency risk provider

In related Nortel and Lehman Brothers cases, the UK Supreme Court ruled in July that Financial Support Directions ("FSDs") and Contribution Notices ("CNs") under the Pensions Act 2004 rank as provable debts if issued against insolvent targets.

Overturning the decisions of Mr Justice Briggs and the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court has ruled that such FSD or CN liabilities are not administration or liquidation expenses. It has also confirmed that they do not rank behind other provable debts (the option which had become known as the 'black hole').

HIGHLIGHTS

The credit crunch caused problems for businesses at the same time as the value of pension scheme assets plunged, adding ballooning defined benefit pension deficits to the woes of struggling companies.

Company insolvencies, and attempts at restructuring to avoid insolvencies, can have a significant impact on the pension schemes sponsored by those companies. The pensions issues can also act as a significant obstacle to restructuring.

The UK Supreme Court has recently overturned a much-criticised and controversial ruling of the Court of Appeal by finding an ambiguously worded advance payment bond effective in the case of insolvency. In doing so, it clarified the proper role and application of considerations of business common sense when interpreting commercial contracts. Where a clause is capable of two or more possible interpretations, Rainy Sky SA v Kookmin Bank held that the court should prefer the one which is most consistent with common business sense.