WorldSpreads Limited has become the third firm to enter into the Special Administration Regime. The firm, a spread betting company, entered into the regime following the discovery of accounting irregularities which led to a finding that the firm could not continue in business. (Source: Firm Enters Special Administration)

Pension scheme assets can rise and fall. So can liabilities. The timing of the section 75 debt calculation is, therefore, critically important to the ability of the scheme to meet its liabilities.

So when should trustees calculate their section 75 debt? Can they use one date to calculate scheme assets and choose a different date to calculate the cost of buying out the scheme’s liabilities?

In the matter of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (In Administration) and in the matter of the Insolvency Act 1986 [2012] UKSC 6 On appeal from [2010] EWCA Civ 917  

Summary

In Rhinegold Publishing Ltd v Apex Business Development Ltd, Rhinegold and another company owed debts to the defendant in the sums of approximately £22,000 and £31,000 respectively. The defendant presented a winding-up petition against both companies which resulted in settlement being reached. The settlement provided that the companies would pay off the debts owed in full by monthly payments and that no proceedings would be issued in relation to the debts referred to in the original statutory demand if payment was made.

On 29 February, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom handed down its judgment on the treatment of client money that had not been segregated, or was improperly segregated, as at the date Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (“LBIE”) entered administration. The Supreme Court found that:

The courts and FOS are now headed down very different paths in their approach to credit crunch losses suffered by clients of regulated firms. While FOS has all but abandoned the general law of causation in its approach to cases of consumer detriment, we have observed how the courts have held again and again that the general law of causation applies to mis-selling claims.

Regulation 7 of TUPE states that a dismissal will be automatically unfair if the main reason for dismissal is the transfer itself, or a reason connected with the transfer that is not an economic, technical or organisational reason entailing changes in the workforce (‘ETO reason’). This provision has caused some uncertainty where employees are dismissed by an administrator in order to make a business more attractive to a prospective (but as yet unknown) purchaser.

The TUPE Regulations contain some provisions designed to make struggling businesses more attractive to prospective purchasers. TUPE will not apply to transfer employees, and dismissals will not be automatically unfair, where insolvency proceedings have been instituted with a view to liquidation of assets (Regulation 8(7)). However, TUPE will apply to insolvency proceedings which do not aim to liquidate assets, and employees will have unfair dismissal protection (Regulation 8(8)).

Clarification on the jurisdiction of the English courts to sanction schemes of arrangement for overseas companies

Providing further evidence that schemes of arrangement (“schemes”) are an increasingly useful tool in the restructuring of overseas companies, on 20 January 2012, the High Court sanctioned a scheme proposed by PrimaCom Holding GmbH (“PrimaCom”), a German incorporated company, with its centre of main interests (or “COMI”) in Germany and whose affected creditors were domiciled outside the UK.

As the economic clouds continue to darken and the threat of a double-dip recession increases, concern about exposure to unsecured bad debts will inevitably dominate the agenda of many companies. If the worst happens and a significant bad debt is incurred, many creditors are reluctant to review the possibilities afforded to them by the Insolvency Act 1986 and seek the solace of VAT bad debt relief. This is often the case even where it is suspected that the directors of the insolvent company have been culpable of misconduct.