The Pension Schemes Bill [HL] 2019-20 (Bill) was re-introduced before Parliament on 7 January 2020. Among its proposed amendments to the Pensions Act 2004 (Act) are new criminal offences for failing to comply with a contribution notice, avoiding employer debt, conduct risking accrued scheme benefits, an expansion of the moral hazard powers and an extension of the ‘notifiable events’ framework. The Government’s stated intention is to “ensure that those who put pension schemes in jeopardy feel the full force of the law“.

Today (19 September), following an expedited trial, the High Court rejected the application brought by affected landlords to challenge the CVA entered into by Debenhams Retail Limited.

The landlord applicants sought to challenge the CVA which closed stores and imposed rent reductions on landlords according to different categories. 'Category 5' landlords took the biggest hit with rents halved and early termination dates imposed. The CVA proposal was approved by Debenhams' creditors on 9 May 2019.

Five grounds were advanced by the landlords during the hearing:

On 19 September 2019, Norris J handed downjudgment in the challenge brought by six landlords against the Debenhams Retail Limited (Debenhams) company voluntary arrangement (CVA) which was approved by 94.71% of Debenham’s unsecured creditors on 9 May 2019.

The development of new powertrain technology; challenges within established markets, such as diesel emissions issues; and falls in automotive production – production in the United Kingdom has fallen during the last 12 consecutive months – have had a significant impact on the automotive and mobility industry.

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.

On 29 February 2012, the Supreme Court handed down its decision In the matter of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (In Administration) and In the matter of the Insolvency Act 1986. The appeal addressed the meaning and application of Chapter 7 of the Client Assets Sourcebook (CASS 7) issued by the FSA for the safeguarding and  distributing of client money in implementation of the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive 2004/39/EC.

Background

A High Court ruling in England today has provided a significant clarification of the law relating to payment of rent as an administration expense.

In Leisure (Norwich) II Limited v Luminar Lava Ignite Limited (in administration), the Court confirmed that rent payable in advance prior to the appointment of administrators is not payable as an expense of the administration, even if the administrators continue to use the property. This means that the rent would not be given priority over other unsecured debts.

After nearly two years of discussion and consultation, the Department for Business Skills and Innovation (BIS) announced on 26 January 2012 that it will not be seeking to introduce new legislative controls on pre-packs. These were to include a much heralded three-day notice period for creditors to challenge the sale. Many have been left surprised by the government’s apparent u-turn and dismayed that so much time and effort seems to have come to nothing.

After nearly two years of discussion and consultation, the UK Government has today announced that it will not be seeking to introduce new legislative controls on pre-packs, including a proposed three day notice or "cooling off" period.

The term “pre-pack” typically refers to a sale of all or part of a company’s business which is negotiated prior to the company going into administration and then completed by the administrator shortly after his appointment.

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.