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

Schemes of arrangement (“schemes”) have become the restructuring tool of choice for English companies or overseas companies that have English law-governed debts.

Overturning the High Court and Court of Appeal decisions in Bloom and Others v The Pensions Regulator and Others, the Supreme Court has ruled that financial support directions (FSD)and contribution notices (CN) issued by The Pensions Regulator in insolvencies create “provable debts” which should be given unsecured, non-preferential, creditor ranking.

The UK’s Insolvency Act 1986 sets out in s.123 various tests to determine whether a company should be deemed unable to pay its debts. The relevance of these tests to distressed companies is obvious: deciding as they do when it is appropriate to seek an administration order or present a winding up petition. They also help determine directors’ duties, antecedent transactions and issues such as wrongful and fraudulent trading.

The recentThomas Cook refinancing and Cortefiel scheme of arrangement offer contrasting examples to investors of the risks and rewards of adopting a hold-out position in complex multijurisdictional restructurings.

A judgment recently handed down from the High Court clarifies the obligations of liquidators under the Data Protection Act 1998, providing them with greater personal protection from fines or other sanctions.

Reed Smith acted for the liquidators in their application for directions.

Background

The Government has recently published a discussion paper, ‘Transparency & Trust: Enhancing the transparency of UK company ownership and increasing trust in UK business’, inviting feed-back on a number of proposals concerning the transparency of company ownership and control, enforcement of directors’ duties and compensation of creditors.  Among other things, the Government proposes to:  

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