Brexit insolvency issues for trustees of pension schemes with overseas sponsors

You might remember that before 2016, in the world before the EU referendum (which did exist!), it was effectively not possible for the insolvency of an overseas sponsor of a UK pension scheme to trigger entry into the PPF unless the overseas sponsor had a branch or office (an “establishment”) in the UK (for legal geeks you might remember this was the issue discussed in the Olympic Airlines case which was heard by the Supreme Court in 2015).

The case of Davey v Money and Anor (2018) EWHC 766 (Ch) should serve as a gentle warning to secured creditors to be aware of the level of their involvement in the administration of a customer.

Background

Angel House Development Limited (“AHDL“), a property development company, borrowed £16 million from Dunbar Assets Plc (“Dunbar“) in order to fund the purchase and redevelopment of a property, Angel House, in Tower Hamlets. Dunbar took security for the loan(s) in the form of a debenture.

Under German law, there are strict legal obligations for the managing directors of an insolvent company to file for insolvency. Failure to comply exposes a managing director to civil and criminal liability. It is therefore important for managing directors to know how to test whether their company is insolvent. One of the legal reasons for insolvency is illiquidity and the second senate of the German Federal Civil Court (“BGH”) has, in a decision dated 19 December 2017 (II ZR 88/16), clarified a question regarding the illiquidity test.

Last Friday, October 13, Judge Sean H. Lane of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York issued an opinion addressing the presumption against extraterritoriality of US law as well as the limits of the doctrine of international comity.

In an important decision for secured creditors, the Ninth Circuit recently held that the proper “cramdown” valuation of a secured creditor’s collateral is its replacement value, regardless of whether the foreclosure value would generate a higher valuation of the collateral. The appellate court’s decision has the potential to significantly impact lenders that include certain types of restrictions on the use of the collateral (such as low income housing requirements) in their financing documents.

The Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) Ordinance 2016 (CAP 32) (the “Amendment Ordinance”) came into force on 13 February 2017. One of the key objectives of the Amendment Ordinance is to increase protection of creditors. Under the Amendment Ordinance, liquidators are given the avoidance power to set aside transactions at an undervalue and unfair preferences. 

American Apparel, the struggling clothing manufacturer and retailer, found itself in chapter 11 this past November after failing to implement its turnaround plan amid a challenging retail environment. Last week, Judge Shannon in the District of Delaware approved a largely consensual sale of American Apparel’s assets to Gildan Activewear. While the hearing transcript is not yet available, several sources are reporting that, when discussing next steps in the case, Judge Shannon indicated that he is not likely to entertain a structured dismissal.

Among other strategic considerations a financially troubled company must grapple with as it prepares for a potential bankruptcy filing is how best to effectively implement necessary workforce reductions as part of its overall reorganization efforts. A workforce reduction could potentially give rise to severance and other employee obligations, and, under certain circumstances, could also give rise to significant WARN Act claims.

The High Court has recently demonstrated its right to exercise discretion as to whether an administration order should be made in relation to a company. In Rowntree Ventures v Oak Property Partners Limited, even though the companies were unable to pay their debts and where the statutory purpose of administration was likely to be achieved, the Court exercised its commercial judgment in determining that it was premature to make an administration order.

Background

Different countries frame the exact description of the role of directors of a company in different terms. One feature is common to all – the obligation not to continue trading if a company is insolvent. Again, the detailed implications of doing so vary from one jurisdiction to another. However, this obligation not to continue wrongful trading is at the heart of trust in a market-based economic system