The recent decision of Re Bluecrest Mercantile BV saw the High Court stay proceedings for summary judgment in respect of contract debts to allow the formulation of proposals for a scheme of arrangement - is this likely to be become common practice, or is it a one-off?

The background

The Court of Appeal’s decision in the matters of Nortel GMBH and Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (both in administration) and other companies has been overturned by the Supreme Court. Liabilities imposed on insolvent companies by the Pensions Regulator (“tPR”) will not be treated as an expense of the insolvency, which would be payable by the office holder in advance of making payment of his own remuneration or to floating charge holders. The liability will rank as an unsecured debt rateably with all other unsecured creditors.

The balance sheet test for insolvency under section 123(2) of the UK Insolvency Act requires the court to make a judgment whether it has been established that, looking at the company's assets and making proper

The insolvency of one or other of the parties to a dispute has become commonplace in recent times, particularly in construction related disputes. Practitioners are becoming increasingly knowledgeable about the implications of insolvency on procedure and the potential remedies available.

Summary

On 24 July 2013, the Supreme Court handed down its long-awaited judgment in the Nortel/Lehman case: Re Nortel Companies [2013] UKSC 52. The Court looked at the position where a contribution notice (CN) or financial support direction (FSD) was issued by the Pensions Regulator (TPR) on a company that is already in insolvency proceedings in England (eg administration). How does the relevant obligation rank in the order of priority of payment?

With business liquidations and administrations down in Q1 of 2013, what will be the likely effect on claims against insolvency practitioners?

The numbers

The Insolvency Service recently reported that:

Relief for lenders and administrators as UK Supreme Court reverses “super-priority” status of pensions liabilities in insolvency ranking.

The judgment handed down on 6 June 2013 by the Court of Appeal in the case of The Trustees of the Olympic Airlines SA Pension and Life Assurance Scheme v Olympic Airlines SA [2013] EWCA Civ 643 reversed a High Court decision made in May 2012 that a winding up order could be granted in the UK in respect of Olympic Airlines, the Greek national airline, which was in liquidation in Greece as a result of it receiving illegal state aid and the privatisation of the airline business.

The Supreme Court has boosted the rescue culture by ruling that Financial Support Directions (FSDs) issued by the UK Pensions Regulator after commencement of insolvency proceedings are not an expense of the administration and, instead, rank on a par with unsecured claims. This decision in the Nortel and Lehman administrations will be reassuring to creditors and insolvency and restructuring practitioners.

Key Points

A recent overruling by the Supreme Court has revoked the priority status of pension schemes issued with a Financial Support Direction (FSD) or Contribution Notice (CN) by the Pensions Regulator, following an insolvency event. Whilst the decision largely affects companies operating within England and Wales, Scottish Courts are expected to be guided by the ruling.

The 2011 decision