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.

A claim by trustees against an insolvent participating employer (who has ceased to participate in the pension scheme) for its share of the scheme deficit is a contingent obligation at the date of winding up and is admissible in the winding-up. This follows the decision by the Outer House of the Court of Session in Scotland in Burton, Re Direction of Assets [2010] CSOH 174.

On 16 September 2010 the UK Treasury published a consultation paper seeking views on its proposals for a new Special Administration Regime (SAR) for investment firms. The Consultation included draft regulations that will implement the SAR (the Draft Regulations).

The Consultation was prompted by the failure of Lehman Brothers in 2008 which posed (and continues to pose) serious challenges for insolvency regimes around the world.

By a judgment handed down on 26 October 2010 in Sugar Hut Group Ltd & Ors v Great Lakes Reinsurance (UK) Plc & Ors [2010] EWHC 2636 (Comm), Mr Justice Burton in the Commercial Court held that insurers were entitled to avoid, for a material non-disclosure of a corporate re-organisation, a policy which could otherwise have covered losses arising from a fire at the premises of the insureds.

On 17 September, the Pension Regulator's Determinations Panel announced that it had issued a determination that six companies within the Lehman Brothers group (including the group's main operating companies in the UK as well as the US parent Lehman Brothers Holding Inc.) should provide financial support to the Lehman Brothers Pension Scheme. This followed a hearing on 8-9 September 2010.

The Insolvency Service recently opened a consultation (the "Consultation") on its proposals for a restructuring moratorium. Under the proposals, eligible companies satisfying certain qualifying conditions would be able to apply to court for a moratorium to prevent creditor action (a "Moratorium"). The Moratorium is not intended to be an alternative to formal insolvency for companies that are already insolvent but is intended to support viable companies reach a compromise with their creditors.

On 8 July, the Pensions Regulator’s Determinations Panel published a determination to issue a financial support direction against 25 companies in the Nortel group in Canada, the US, Europe and Africa.

In a recent opinion (Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Co. SAL and others [2009] UKHL 43) handed down in the final days of the House of Lords, their Lordships clarified a point which may be of some significance for successful claimants seeking to enforce a Court order against corporate defendants.  

In a decision handed down just before the end of term, auditors have won an important House of Lords ruling limiting their liability in cases where a “one man” company is used as a vehicle for fraud. The Law Lords dismissed by a majority of three to two a negligence claim brought against an audit firm for failing to detect a massive fraud at Stone & Rolls, a trading company that fell in the late 1990s – holding that the liquidators could not bring a claim for damages when the company itself was responsible for the fraud.

Background

In Clare Horwood & Others v Land of Leather Limited (In Administration) and Zurich Insurance Plc the Commercial Court was asked to consider in the context of a claim under the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 1930 whether a compromise agreement entered into by an insured without the insurer's specific instructions in writing was in breach of a policy term. Under the compromise agreement, the insured had released a third party from an obligation to indemnify it in respect of various personal injury claims.