31/10/2016 Pensions Update ­ October 2016 http://bakerxchange.com/rv/ff002b980788f142ab3974e23146b6f2e393d02b 1/4 Pensions Update October 2016 In this issue Court of Appeal clarifies treatment of pensions on bankruptcy PPF publishes consultation on 2017/2018 levy DWP consults on valuing pensions for the advice requirement Regulator declares rule change void Next steps in leaving the European Union Committee publishes new evidence on regulation of pension schemes Regulator launches blog Government cancels plans t

This week’s TGIF considers what the UK decision of Simpkin v The Berkeley Group Holdings PLC [2017] EWHC 1472 means for insolvency practitioners seeking to access potentially privileged documents created by employees of appointee companies.

BACKGROUND

This week’s TGIF considers the case ofMighty River International Ltd v Hughes, where the High Court upheld the validity of Holding DOCAs.

Case history

This case concerned the validity of a deed of company arrangement (DOCA) between Mesa Minerals Ltd (Mesa) and its creditors.

In a judgment only recently published via the Building Law Reports,  the High Court has ruled that a winding up procedure applicable to companies should not be used where there is a triable issue as to the validity of an adjudicator’s decision relied on as evidence of a company being unable to pay its debts: Towsey v. Highgrove [2012] EWHC 2644 (Chancery Division).

Background

On 10 December 2010, the High Court gave judgment in a joint application by the administrators of certain companies in the Nortel and Lehman estates for directions on the status of any financial support direction (FSD) or contribution notice (CN) issued to the companies in administration or any subsequent liquidation (Bloom & Others v. The Pensions Regulator (Nortel, Re) [2010] EWHC 3010 (Ch)).

The Sinclair v Versailles1 decision has extinguished any prospect that a victim of a fraud has a proprietary claim to a fraudster’s secret profits. It also offers significant comfort to banks, insolvency practitioners and other potential recipients of trust funds by setting a high bar for whether a recipient person is “on notice” of a proprietary claim to those funds.

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.

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.

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

The High Court has ruled in the case of Goldacre (Offices) Limited v Nortel Networks UK Limited (in administration) [2009] that rent for premises that continue to be used for the beneficial outcome of an administration must be paid as an expense of the administration. This decision confirms that the court has no discretion in these circumstances and that it does not matter if only part of the premises are being used. This contrasts with the position where a landlord wishes to take action against a tenant in administration such as bringing forfeiture or injunction proceedings.