The Pensions Regulator has issued a statement setting out its approach to Financial Support Directions in insolvency situations.  It follows the Court of Appeal's decision in Bloom v The Pensions Regulator (Nortel) in October 2011 that a liability arising from a Financial Support Direction (FSD), or a contribution notice (CN), issued to a company in administration or liquidation will, except in very limited circumstances, amount to an expense of that administration or liquidation.  As such, it will rank very highly in the payment priority order, in particular rank

Following a case known as Goldacre, it was held that if an administrator is in occupation of a leasehold property, which is being retained for the purposes of the administration, and rent falls due (monthly or quarterly) during his / her occupation, then such rent is to be treated as an expense of the administration (and therefore paid in priority to unsecured creditors). This remains the case even if the administrator occupies only part of the property and whether or not he / she occupies the property for the whole quarter.

The Pensions Regulator (the “Regulator”) has published a statement setting out its approach to the issuing of financial support directions (“FSDs”) in insolvency situations. The statement is designed to calm fears following the decision in the joined Nortel and Lehman cases that the “super priority” of FSDs could have a negative impact on the corporate rescue and lending industries.

Background

Over the last few years, the courts have shown themselves to be increasingly unwilling to interfere in the level of liquidated damages set in building contracts. The courts have taken this position predominantly because the agreed level of liquidated damages forms part of the commercial bargain reached between the parties at the outset of the contract. However, employers should still carefully calculate the level of liquidated damages inserted into the contract for the following reasons:

In these parlous economic times, more businesses are facing increased financial pressure, resulting in periods of stressful trading. In such cases, consideration needs to be given to the development of a sound strategy that allows the company to successfully continue to trade and pay its creditors.

The purpose of this article is to address some of the “tools” available to assist directors in the restructuring of a company.

On 26 July, the Pensions Regulator (TPR) published a statment on financial support directions (FSDs) and insolvency, with the aim of helping 'the pensions and insolvency industries understand TPR's approach in relation to financial suppirt directions in insolvency situations.'

The issues concerning validity of appointment, which arose following the decision in Minmar Limited v Khalastchi have been considered in a number of recent cases, most recently BXL Services Limited [2012] EWHC 1877 (Ch).

In this August edition of the Pensions E-Bulletin, we look at the Pensions Regulator’s statement on its approach to financial support directions (FSDs) in insolvency situations, the shortened guidance on incentive exercises issued by Pensions Regulator following the publication of the industry code of good practice as well as noting the updated guidance on multi-employer scheme departures and the consultation by the Takeover Panel on proposals relating to pension scheme trustees. 

FSDs and insolvency – the Regulator’s statement

The Pensions Regulator (the "Regulator") has published a statement to help banking, insolvency and restructuring professionals understand its approach to its Financial Support Direction ("FSD") powers in insolvency situations.

Facts

In 2006, a subsidiary of a Brazilian company issued US$100 million in principal amount of notes, guaranteed by its parent and constituted by a trust deed.