The Supreme Court yesterday issued its decision in the long-running case concerning financial support directions (“FSDs”) issued by the UK Pensions Regulator to various companies in the Nortel and Lehman groups. The case considered where a company's obligations under an FSD should rank in relation to its other debts if the company was insolvent when the FSD was issued.

On April 19, 2012, the Lehman bankruptcy court handed down its decision on the long-pending motion to dismiss filed by JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., in response to Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.’s $8.6 billion avoidance action against it. The action sought to recover the value of collateral taken by JP Morgan in its role as principal clearing bank to Lehman in the run-up to the Lehman insolvency.

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”.  

To promote equal treatment of creditors, the US Congress has armed debtors with the power to bring suit to recover a variety of pre-bankruptcy transfers. Prominent among these is a debtor’s ability under Section 548 of the Bankruptcy Code to recover constructively fraudulent transfers — i.e., transfers made without fair consideration when a debtor is insolvent.

The PPF Ombudsman has rejected an appeal by a pension scheme member which was based on the premise that the PPF compensation cap contravened European law (in this case the Insolvency Directive). The Insolvency Directive requires member states to take "necessary measures" to ensure protection of members' occupational retirement benefits upon the insolvency of an employer. 

The Western Australian Court of Appeal has today delivered its judgment in the appeal of Westpac Banking Corporation v The Bell Group Ltd (in Liq) [2012] WASCA 157 ( The Bell Appeal ).  The Court substantially rejected the appeal.  The decision has important implications for directors, financiers and bondholder investors. It is a salutary reminder for financiers of the consequences of "knowingly receiving" a benefit from a breach of directors' duties. 

Background

In Re: Katherine Elizabeth Barnet, No. 13-612 (2d Cir. Dec. 11, 2013) [click for opinion]

Taking decisions to liquidate companies has become a matter of routine when optimising corporate structures to improve cost efficiency. Increasingly, we see that such decisions have been taken either prematurely or without taking all of the relevant factors into account.

Enhancing lender priority over pension deficiencies in Canada in the post Indalex era - more guidance from the courts
Three recent cases address open issues from the 2013 Indalex decision and point the way to strategies to limit financier exposure to pension deficiency priority

In October 2009 the Greek airline, Olympic Airlines SA ("OA"), entered "special liquidation" in Greece after the European Commission ordered it to repay illegal state aid from the Greek Government. OA employed about 27 employees in the UK, who participated in an occupational pension scheme. In June 2010 OA's liquidator informed the scheme's trustees that the UK employees' employment would be terminated and that pension contributions would cease from July 2010.