The recent case of Stephen Petitioner offers some clarification regarding issues relating to the validity of appointment of administrators.

The Facts

The Insolvency Act 1986 makes provision for, amongst other things, bankruptcy and Debt Relief Orders.

When a person is made bankrupt, his property vests in the trustee in bankruptcy. Some items, however, are excluded from the estate, including any assured or secure tenancy (s283). Once a bankruptcy order has been made, no creditor in respect of a debt provable in the bankruptcy may have any remedy against the property of the bankrupt 'in respect of that debt' (s285(3)(a)).

New rules imposing extra regulation on pre-packaged insolvency sales by liquidators and administrators were expected to go live in October, but they will not now come into force before April 2012, according to the Insolvency Service. The delay is apparently due to the continued debate on the proposal for liquidators and administrators to have to give a three day notice period of a proposed sale aimed at giving creditors a chance to "express concerns ... or make a higher offer for the assets".

The Court of Appeal has confirmed that where the Pensions Regulator (Regulator) exercises its anti-avoidance powers against a company during insolvency, the liability ranks as an expense in the insolvency process.  The 14 October 2011 judgment, in a case involving the Nortel and Lehman Brothers groups, upheld the High Court's landmark decision of last year.

As you may recall, the High Court ruled in December 2010, in a case brought by the administrators of 20 insolvent companies in the Lehman and Nortel groups, that the cost of complying with a financial support direction ("FSD"), issued by the Pensions Regulator after the date of the commencement of a company's administration or liquidation, would rank as an expense of the administration or liquidation.

In Finnerty v Clark, the Court of Appeal has given guidance on what constitutes "good and sufficient" grounds for the removal of administrators. In this case, shareholders of a company in administration were also substantial creditors of the company. They wished the administrators to raise proceedings under Section 244 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (extortionate credit transactions) to challenge loan agreements that had been entered into by the company prior to administration.

Recently, the Court of Appeal upheld the High Court's decision in the Nortel Networks and Lehman Brothers disputes. The judgment confirms that liabilities under Financial Support Directions (FSDs) and Contribution Notices (CNs), which are issued by the Pensions Regulator, will rank ahead of almost all other claims when a company becomes insolvent. The discussions in the case focused on whether FSDs and CNs are classed as 'provable debts', expenses of the insolvency or, indeed, neither.

The effect of the CA decision

The Court of Appeal handed down its judgment on 14 October 2011 unanimously upholding the first instance decision that a Financial Support Direction (FSD) issued by the Pensions Regulator to an entity after it has commenced insolvency proceedings will rank as an expense of the administration, therefore affording it super-priority over floating charge holders and other unsecured creditors. This decisions has significant implications for lenders to groups with UK defined benefit pension plans if any of their security is taken as a floating charge.

MF Global, one of the world's leading broker/dealer firms entered into insolvency proceedings in both the US and the UK on 31 October 2011. US entities MF Global Holdings Ltd. and MF Global Finance USA Inc. filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the US Bankruptcy Code in the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. Also on 31 October, the US Securities Investor Protection Corporation ("SIPC") initiated the liquidation of MF Global, Inc. a jointly registered futures commission merchant and broker-dealer, under the Securities Investor Protection Act ("SIPA").