Financial support directions and insolvency: the Regulator's statement

The Pensions Regulator (the “Regulator”) has published a statement setting out its approach to the issuing of financial support directions (“FSDs”) in insolvency situations. The statement is designed to calm fears following the decision in the joined Nortel and Lehman cases that the “super priority” of FSDs could have a negative impact on the corporate rescue and lending industries.

Background

Over the last few years, the courts have shown themselves to be increasingly unwilling to interfere in the level of liquidated damages set in building contracts. The courts have taken this position predominantly because the agreed level of liquidated damages forms part of the commercial bargain reached between the parties at the outset of the contract. However, employers should still carefully calculate the level of liquidated damages inserted into the contract for the following reasons:

The issues concerning validity of appointment, which arose following the decision in Minmar Limited v Khalastchi have been considered in a number of recent cases, most recently BXL Services Limited [2012] EWHC 1877 (Ch).

Facts

In 2006, a subsidiary of a Brazilian company issued US$100 million in principal amount of notes, guaranteed by its parent and constituted by a trust deed.

This summer has seen several pension issues making the news. They show how essential it is for employers and trustees to keep abreast of how developments impact on their arrangements.

Jay Doraisamy looks at five areas which have made the headlines this summer:

In Raithatha v Williamson [2012] EWHC 090 Ch, the English High Court was asked to decide whether a bankrupt’s entitlement to a pension, which he had not yet elected to receive, should be subject to an order for income payment.

As noted in our July 2010 newsletter, lawyers are not immune from the recession.

In the English High Court case of Revenue and Customs Commissioners v Football League Ltd (Football Association Premier League Ltd intervening) [2012] EWHC 1372 (Ch);  [2012] WLR (D) 163, HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) brought a general challenge to the "football creditors rule".

As some may be aware, the Court of Session last year issued a Practice Note on the subject of making applications to extend the period of administration beyond the initial 12 month period.