On 17 May 2017, the UK Supreme Court handed down judgment in proceedings - commonly known as the Waterfall I litigation - to determine claims with regard to the estimated £8 billion surplus arising in the estate of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (LBIE).

Until recently, there was little call for restructuring and turnaround specialists in the UK to focus on the oil and gas industry. That has now undoubtedly changed.  In the second half of 2014, Brent crude prices fell from over US$100 a barrel to around US$50, and although prices have since stabilised (currently near the US$60 mark), a low price environment in the medium term seems likely. That is not bad news for all in the oil and gas industry.

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.

Pension scheme assets can rise and fall. So can liabilities. The timing of the section 75 debt calculation is, therefore, critically important to the ability of the scheme to meet its liabilities.

So when should trustees calculate their section 75 debt? Can they use one date to calculate scheme assets and choose a different date to calculate the cost of buying out the scheme’s liabilities?

TPR settled its dispute with Michael Van de Wiele (VdW) in relation to its UK pension scheme and issued a Contribution Notice (CN) for £60,000. Although this is significantly less than the £21 million originally sought and the £5.08 million decided by the Determinations Panel, TPR says it is “business as usual” for the use of its statutory anti-avoidance powers. A settlement at this level might be viewed as a defeat for TPR and an indication that CNs are not a potent weapon to deal with the avoidance of employer debts. That view would be seriously misguided.

FSA has censured a firm in voluntary liquidation for failings in selling and promoting geared traded endowment policies. Integrity Financial Solutions provided and advised on the policies. FSA found the product information it produced was misleading, which may have led IFAs to advise customers to buy an unsuitable product. It also found the firm’s own sales arm did not record information on customers and could not evidence why the product was suitable. FSA would have recommended a £350,000 fine if the firm were not in liquidation.

Treasury has published two orders made under the Insolvency Act 1986 and the Banking Act 2009. The orders are:  

This round-up collates the information, analysis and guidance relating to insolvency issues shared by our Construction and Restructuring, Insolvency and Bankruptcy teams during the COVID-19 pandemic. For further information on any of the issues below, please get in touch with one of the Key Contacts.

Gurbinder Grewal and Michael Wright in the UK Construction Team explain the knock on effects of insolvencies and the mitigating steps that can be taken. Early warning signs of looming insolvency can be spotted.

Key points

A recent challenge in the High Court by liquidators to recover assets from a director of an insolvent company has highlighted various points of company law. In particular, the court had to consider directors' authority, share buybacks, and transactions between a company and its directors.

The claimant (D) was the managing director and controlling shareholder of the defendant company (the Company). The Company at first had one other director, D's wife, and later a second (W).

The liquidator challenged three transactions: