In my May 2018 article ‘Insolvency calls time on pursuing claims’, I looked at how various moratoria apply to stop claims when a party enters into certain insolvency processes. I offered a taster when I said that adjudicator’s awards were a strange species because they are not final and binding, that this complicates their enforcement, and that I would look at the complex interaction between insolvency and the enforcement of adjudicator's awards soon.

Once I have a contract it is binding unless the other side goes bust – right?

One party to a contract cannot unilaterally change the deal – right?

If a commercial tenant does not pay its rent the landlord can forfeit – right?

As landlords have found to their cost this year, the answer is that a CVA can challenge all of these assumptions.

The benefit of hindsight is a wonderful thing. The benefits of a fully functional crystal ball to see the future would be much better. All pensions lawyers (and scheme actuaries) would add it to their gift list!

I will attempt to take a look at the pensions related announcements in Monday’s budget from a future (perhaps optimistic) vantage point.

So here we are, nearing the end of 2023…

1. Dashboards

Following the Enterprise Act 2002, the preferential status which HMRC had enjoyed in an insolvency was abolished, rendering HMRC the same as any other unsecured creditor. The effect of this was to swell the pot of assets available to be applied to all unsecured creditor claims.

Philip Hammond announced in Monday’s budget that HMRC’s preferential status is to be restored. What does this mean for HMRC and unsecured creditors?

The Budget provided that:

On 31 October the Supreme Court handed down the judgment in the case of Dooneen Limited t/a McGuiness Associates v David Mond.

The judgment confirmed that a trustee is not entitled to property discovered after a trust deed has been terminated and the trustee discharged and therefore provides some much needed clarity for banks, debtors and trustees who face this situation.

The facts

The Consultation

In March 2018, the Government published a consultation on its proposed reforms to the UK’s insolvency and corporate governance landscape. It sought views on ways to reduce the risk of company failures occurring through poor governance, whilst improving the insolvency framework to create a stronger business environment. The Government has now published its response to the consultation and we consider the key changes below.

Parent Company Director Accountability

The long awaited new Scottish Insolvency Rules for Company Voluntary Arrangements and Administration (The Insolvency (Scotland) (Company Voluntary Arrangements and Administration) Rules 2018) were laid in Parliament today. The Rules are a negative SI which means they do not need active approval by Parliament and will automatically come into effect as law unless either the Commons or Lords annuls them within a fixed period after they have been laid. The intention is that they will commence on 6 April 2019.

The Government has announced that it will legislate to prohibit the enforcement of certain contractual termination clauses ('ipso facto clauses').

As with other aspects of the response to recent insolvency and corporate governance consultations, this has given us pause for thought.

The recent High Court decision in Caribonum Pension Trustee Limited v Pelikan Hardcopy Production AG [2018] EWHC 2321 (Ch) will provide some comfort for pension plan trustees owed money by insolvent sponsoring employers by allowing trustees to pursue guarantors within the same group for those debts.

What was contended to be an abuse of Court process has been confirmed by the Court as a legitimate debt recovery strategy. This was on the basis that a contractual agreement, a guarantee, was in place that was legitimately enforceable by a pension plan trustee.

Background

The claimant, Close Brothers Ltd (“Close”), a London based bank, sought to enforce its right to sell the defendant’s, AIS (Marine) 2 Limited (“AIS”) secured property following AIS’s default on repayment of a loan. The asset in question was a vessel and AIS mortgaged shares in the vessel to Close in order to secure a loan of €2,247,000 (the “Loan”). The purpose of the Loan was to assist AIS in purchasing the vessel, which cost €3,210,000.

Agreement