Summary

Odd as it may seem, you have to plough through 122 sections of the UK Insolvency Act 1986 (the “Act”) before you finally reach the section that sets out the criteria for establishing insolvency. Section 123 of the Act lists a series of circumstances under which a company may be deemed insolvent. Some of these circumstances are factual—for example, owing a debt of more than £750 for more than 21 days after a demand for payment—but two rely on a legal test of company insolvency.

Background

Under the Pensions Act 2004 the Pensions Regulator (tPR) has the power to impose a financial support direction (FSD) requiring a company “connected or associated” with the sponsoring employer of a UK pension fund to provide financial support to the pension fund. To date tPR has used the power in insolvencies.

English courts may, when making ex parte (without notice) orders in a court-appointed receivership, include a final order that the defendant pays the costs incurred in obtaining the order notwithstanding that it was not notified of the application for the order.

The Court of Appeal’s decision in the matters of Nortel GMBH and Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (both in administration) and other companies has been overturned by the Supreme Court. Liabilities imposed on insolvent companies by the Pensions Regulator (“tPR”) will not be treated as an expense of the insolvency, which would be payable by the office holder in advance of making payment of his own remuneration or to floating charge holders. The liability will rank as an unsecured debt rateably with all other unsecured creditors.

The balance sheet test for insolvency under section 123(2) of the UK Insolvency Act requires the court to make a judgment whether it has been established that, looking at the company's assets and making proper

The insolvency of one or other of the parties to a dispute has become commonplace in recent times, particularly in construction related disputes. Practitioners are becoming increasingly knowledgeable about the implications of insolvency on procedure and the potential remedies available.

Summary

On 24 July 2013, the Supreme Court handed down its long-awaited judgment in the Nortel/Lehman case: Re Nortel Companies [2013] UKSC 52. The Court looked at the position where a contribution notice (CN) or financial support direction (FSD) was issued by the Pensions Regulator (TPR) on a company that is already in insolvency proceedings in England (eg administration). How does the relevant obligation rank in the order of priority of payment?

Comment

The Supreme Court has handed down its highly anticipated judgment in the joint Nortel Networks/Lehman Brothers appeal.  The administrators of Nortel and Lehman Brothers entities had appealed against the Court of Appeal’s decision that Financial Support Directions (FSDs) issued by the Pensions Regulator (“the Regulator”) after the appointment of administrators attracted priority status as an administration expense.  Rejecting the decision of the lower courts, the Supreme Court ruled that an FSD issued during the course of an administration will rank as a provable debt rather than a