A CVA was introduced as one of the rescue arrangements under the Insolvency Act 1986. It allows a company to settle unsecured debts by paying only a proportion of the amount owed, or to vary the terms on which it pays its unsecured creditors. Whilst a CVA only requires approval of a 75% majority of the creditors by value, it binds every unsecured creditor of the company, including any that voted against it or did not vote at all.

In Rubin v Coote [2011] EWCA Civ 106 (09 February 2011) the Court of Appeal has upheld the decision of a liquidator to settle litigation against a former director of a company notwithstanding the opposition of the company’s creditors.

In previous issues of TransAtlantic, we reported that the UK Pensions Regulator had issued contribution notices (CNs) and financial support directions (FSDs) against insolvent companies in the Nortel and Lehman Brothers groups. Click here for the June story on Nortel (see page 5); click here for the November story on Lehman (see page 7).

In BNY Corporate Trustee Service v Eurosail UK1, the Court of Appeal rejected a “mechanical” definition of balance sheet insolvency.

There remains much economic uncertainty ahead and it seems that insolvency practices are likely to continue to remain important drivers in accountancy firms. However, insolvency practitioners are facing increased regulation and public scrutiny. They need to remain on top of their game to navigate safely through stormy waters, as Ross Goodrich reports.

Background

Where lenders rely on floating charge security to make recoveries from companies in administration, some recent cases have massively increased the potential for administration expenses to swallow up those recoveries. The more well-known cases could just be the start. So, what are the potential risks? What can lenders do in the face of the law as it currently stands? What is going to happen next?

The Nortel decisions

Where lenders are lending to and taking security from companies that may become subject to special administration regimes, the value of the security may be affected and enforcement options restricted. More companies are subject to these procedures than you might think. So, how do you identify whether your borrower is subject to one of these regimes? Should you place a lower value on your security? What are your enforcement rights? Might your borrower become affected after grant of the security?

Special administration regimes

BNY Corporate Trustee Services Limited v Eurosail-UK 2007-3BL Plc & others [2011] EWCA Civ 227

The Court of Appeal has allowed companies around the country to breathe a solvent sigh of relief, as it has held that the so-called “balance sheet” test of insolvency in s123(2) Insolvency Act 1996 is intended to apply where a company has reached a “point of no return” rather than being used as a “mechanistic, even artificial, reason for permitting a creditor to present a petition to wind up a company”.  

Background

Section 123 of the Insolvency Act 1986 provides two main tests of when a company is insolvent:

The Employment Appeal Tribunal has ruled in five conjoined appeals that TUPE applies in all administrations, since they constitute ”relevant insolvency proceedings” and not ”liquidation proceedings”. This will be the case even in “pre-pack” administrations, where a business is placed into administration but immediately sold to a purchaser who has been lined up to buy the business beforehand.