Whether rent due should be treated as an insolvency expense (paid in preference to unsecured creditors and the insolvency practitioner's fees/expenses) remains controversially topical. With the economic recovery being more of a marathon than a sprint, and more insolvencies anticipated, both landlords and insolvency practitioners (IP) are calling for greater clarity over when rent is an insolvency expense and over what period.

Financial support directions and insolvency: the Regulator's statement

The Pensions Regulator has today issued a Statement on its power to issue financial support directions (“FSDs”) against companies after an insolvency event has occurred. The Statement follows longstanding concerns of insolvency practitioners, which have arisen from ongoing court proceedings brought by the Lehman Brothers and Nortel administrators.

Background

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

In the English High Court case of Revenue and Customs Commissioners v Football League Ltd (Football Association Premier League Ltd intervening) [2012] EWHC 1372 (Ch);  [2012] WLR (D) 163, HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) brought a general challenge to the "football creditors rule".

As some may be aware, the Court of Session last year issued a Practice Note on the subject of making applications to extend the period of administration beyond the initial 12 month period. 

In the first of a two-part series, Will Pearce and Gawain Moore of Herbert Smith LLP examine some of the common tools used for, and issues that arise when, restructuring premium-listed companies.

In September 2010, the Determinations Panel of the Regulator (the "DP") issued financial support directions ("FSDs") against six companies in the Lehman Brothers Group, but determined that no FSDs would be issued against 38 other companies in the group. The trustees of the Lehman Brothers Pension Scheme appealed the decision not to issue FSDs against these 38 companies to the Upper Tribunal. However, the companies applied for the trustees' appeal to be struck out.