Financial guarantees often contain non-competition clauses. This is mainly to:  

• increase the financier’s recoveries from its principal debtor, by stopping the guarantor from draining money from the principal debtor; and  
• prevent the guarantor from obstructing a restructuring of the principal debtor’s liabilities.  

A recent case suggests these clauses should expressly exclude the “rule in Cherry v. Boultbee”. Zoë Thirlwell and Alexander Hewitt explain.

Counter-indemnity rights  

Treasury has made a new set of Financial Markets and Insolvency Regulations that change the insolvency regime that applies to RIEs and RCHs. The Regulations amend several existing pieces of legislation including Part VII Companies Act 1989 and the 1991 Regulations. The changes include:  

Today, new legislation comes into force* that provides directors of companies in financial difficulty with a second breathing space from the financial impact of the wrongful trading provisions.

On 28 March 2020 the UK government announced that emergency measures will be implemented to provide protection to directors of companies which continue to trade notwithstanding the threat of insolvency, and to prevent, where possible, companies entering into insolvency due to COVID-19.

The proposed measures are as follows:

LBI EHF (in winding up) v. Raiffeisen Zentralbank Österreich AG and Raiffeisen Bank International AG [2017] EWHC 522 (Comm)

When will the insolvency-related provisions come into force?

Following Parliamentary approval in March 2015, there has been a level of uncertainty around the implementation timeline for certain company law and insolvency provisions. In particular, many of the changes to the Insolvency Act 1986 will come into force without transitional provisions and so will apply automatically to existing insolvency proceedings.

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.