Rainy Sky SA et al v Kookmin Bank [2010] All ER (D) 255 (May) In our Spring 2010 e-news we reported on the case of Kookmin Bank which dealt with the interpretation of a refund guarantee between Kookmin Bank (the “Bank”) and the customer of an insolvent shipyard. The Bank issued a refund guarantee to secure obligations assumed by its customer Jinse Shipbuilding (the “Builder”). The agreement required the Bank to repay on demand all of the instalments paid by the buyer, Rainy Sky, on the occurrence of a default event under the refund guarantee.

Section 113 of the Housing Grants, Construction & Regeneration Act 1996 (the 1996 Act) outlaws pay when paid provisions, with one exception. It is permissible for a Contractor to use a pay when paid provision to deny payment of outstanding amounts due to its Sub-contractor where the Client at the top of the supply chain has gone bust. The general consensus is of course that this exception is unfair. It is essentially asking the Sub-contractors to act as insurers of both the main Contractor and Client insolvency.

Introduction

For all of the legal difficulties which market participants are facing in light of the insolvency of Lehman Brothers, the insolvency is providing the Courts with the opportunity to pass judgment on many of the tricky provisions of the 1992 and 2002 versions of the ISDA Master Agreement (together the "Agreements").

There are essentially three types of insolvency proceeding: liquidation, receivership and administration. Liquidators realise and distribute a company’s assets before dissolving the company. Receivers usually realise certain secured assets to repay certain debts, before appointing a liquidator. However, an administrator’s first objective is to rescue the company as a going concern. It is only if this is not practicable that the administrator can realise and distribute a company’s assets.

The much awaited EAT decision inOTG Ltd v Barke and others (formerlyOlds v Late Editions Ltd) was delivered on 16 February. As expected, the EAT has taken the view that an administration cannot amount to “bankruptcy” or “analogous insolvency proceedings” for the purposes of Regulation 8(7) of TUPE. So, on a sale by an administrator (even in a pre-pack administration) TUPE will apply.

In more detail

The full force of TUPE is relaxed in relation to insolvent transfers as follows:

The much awaited court decision on the status of Financial Support Directions (“FSDs”) and Contribution Notices (“CNs”) * issued by the Pensions Regulator against target companies after the commencement of English insolvency processes in respect of such targets was handed down by the court on Friday 10 December 2010. The reluctant decision of Mr Justice Briggs that FSDs and CNs in these circumstances were not provable debts but ranked as expenses of the insolvency process, taking precedence ahead of unsecured creditors, has caused dismay in the restructuring community.

In a recent high profile case brought by the administrators of 20 insolvent companies in the Lehman and Nortel groups, the High Court ruled that the cost of complying with a financial support direction (“FSD”) issued after the date of the commencement of a company’s administration or liquidation by the Pensions Regulator would rank as an expense of the administration or liquidation.

A late October 2010 case Straw Realisations v Shaftsbury House illustrates the courts’ approach to technical and insolvency-based challenges regarding enforcement of adjudicators’ awards. Given the current spate of contractor insolvencies and popularity of adjudication, any trust facing an adverse adjudicator's decision in favour of its contractor should not pay without due consideration.

In a decision that demonstrates a considerable degree of common sense, Lord Glennie has confirmed that in certain liquidations one can dispense with the usual requirement for a Reporter to be appointed to consider a liquidator's accounts. The decision forms part of an Opinion issued by Lord Glennie in relation to the winding-up of Park Gardens Investments Limited ("the Company").

In the Matter of Bell Lines Limited (In Liquidation)  

That decision has effectively been relied on since 2006 for the proposition that, except for the Social Insurance Fund, a party advancing monies for the payment of remuneration falling due before the commencement of an insolvency process but actually paid after such commencement is not entitled to subrogate to the employees’ preferential claims.

The Appeal