It has been an interesting 12 months in the world of insolvency and restructuring.

In the United Kingdom, the Pension Protection Fund (“PPF”) is the safety net for the employee members of a defined benefit pension plan or scheme.  The PPF compensates members when an employer has not and cannot put sufficient assets in the pension scheme to meet its obligations to member employees and the employer has suffered a “qualifying insolvency event”.

A recent English High Court decision has held that prospective Administrators do not need to look behind the directors’ motives in appointing them; they need to look ahead as to what might happen in the administration and consider whether the statutory purpose of the administration can be achieved.

The UK’s Pension Protection Fund (PPF) is about to publish new guidelines to reflect their increased focus on the approval of Insolvency Practitioner’s (IPs) fees. The guidelines require IPs to provide more regular detail of accruing and anticipated costs to the PPF when they are appointed over employers where Defined Benefit (Final Salary) pension schemes are significant creditors. More specifically IPs will now be required to provide a more detailed explanation of how their proposed remuneration reflects the value provided to creditors.

Overview

This article considers the state of the care homes industry, certain issues that arise when dealing with the imminent insolvency of care homes and initial considerations about what to take into account when determining sales strategy.

General concerns

The fortunes of agricultural businesses across the world have always been vulnerable to natural and economic forces such as climate change, world commodity pricing and exchange rate movement. Nowhere is this more evident today than in the current crisis facing the UK dairy farming industry where the unique political and environmental conditions of 2014 have driven milk prices down to some of the lowest levels seen in recent years testing the viability of many of the country’s dairy farmers.

In the recent case of Wilson (as liquidator of 375 Live Ltd) v SMC Properties Limited, the English High Court reviewed the policy behind section 127 Insolvency Act 1986 (“the Act”) and the underlying principles that apply to validation order applications.

Months of anticipation culminated in a successful result for the Liquidators of Bilta (UK) Limited (in liquidation) on 22 April 2015 in a pivotal fraud case, whereby the Supreme Court unanimously dismissed an appeal involving the ‘illegality defence’, in the case of Jetivia SA and another v Bilta (UK) Ltd (in liquidation) and others [2015] UKSC 23.

The UK Government announced plans in parliament on 3 March 2015 requiring insolvency practitioners to provide an upfront estimate of their fees for creditor approval, where they are charging on a time-cost basis. The new rules are expected to be in force from October 2015 for English and Welsh regimes (although they will not apply to members’ voluntary liquidations).

Creditors have the right to challenge the remuneration and expenses of appointed administrators through the Court. There is a procedure set out in Rule 2.109(1B) Insolvency Rules including a time limit by which such a challenge should be made.  The Court has a discretion to extend the time limit but in what circumstances will the Court exercise its discretion?