The much awaited court decision on the status of Financial Support Directions (“FSDs”) and Contribution Notices (“CNs”) * issued by the Pensions Regulator against target companies after the commencement of English insolvency processes in respect of such targets was handed down by the court on Friday 10 December 2010. The reluctant decision of Mr Justice Briggs that FSDs and CNs in these circumstances were not provable debts but ranked as expenses of the insolvency process, taking precedence ahead of unsecured creditors, has caused dismay in the restructuring community.

In a recent high profile case brought by the administrators of 20 insolvent companies in the Lehman and Nortel groups, the High Court ruled that the cost of complying with a financial support direction (“FSD”) issued after the date of the commencement of a company’s administration or liquidation by the Pensions Regulator would rank as an expense of the administration or liquidation.

The cuts revealed in the Comprehensive Spending Review have not been quite as bad as the construction industry had apparently been expecting (£3.5 billion not as bad). Nevertheless there have still been billions of pounds shaved off various departmental budgets which will affect the construction industry. Where public spending has in the past been a reliable source of income, some companies are inevitably now going to feel the effect of the cuts.

A notice of intention to appoint administrators (a Notice), although not an absolute bar to making a final charging order, will generally act as a moratorium. This prevents creditors from taking steps to enforce their claims against a company without the permission of the court.

A guarantor can be made bankrupt where the terms of the guarantee create a debt obligation.

According to a recent judgment in the English High Court, Financial Support Directions ("FSDs") issued by the Pensions Regulator ("the Regulator") against companies in administration are to be treated as expenses of the administration. This means that they are to rank ahead of preferential and unsecured creditors and, indeed, perhaps ahead of the remuneration of the administrators themselves.

The administrators of St George’s Property Services (London) Ltd appealed from a decision granting the application of the 2 shareholders and directors of the company to remove the administrators and to appoint replacement insolvency practitioners who were willing to make an application under s 244 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (UK) in respect of an exorbitant credit transaction to which the company was a party.

The High Court has decided that financial support directions can be issued against insolvent companies as well as solvent ones.

The administrators of 20 insolvent companies in the Lehman Brothers and Nortel groups had argued that the Pensions Regulator’s Determinations Panel had no legal power to determine that it would be reasonable to issue FSDs against these companies. The High Court disagreed and decided:

Since 2003, the procedure for appointing administrators has largely consisted of filing simple forms with a court. What could be easier? A recent case has, however, highlighted the dangers of making errors in the filing process and serves as a timely warning to everyone involved in insolvency and security enforcement work.

In Kaupthing Capital Partners II Master LP Inc, the English courts ruled that an appointment of administrators was invalid as the incorrect form had been used for the appointment.

A late-October 2010 case on adjudication illustrates the courts' approach to technical and insolvency-based challenges regarding enforcement of adjudicators' awards.

Haymills (Contractors) Ltd went into administration in August 2009 having already won one adjudication against its employer, Shaftsbury, and having just commenced another, which it subsequently also won. Given Haymills' administration, Shaftsbury refused to pay the amounts awarded in either adjudication, relying on numerous heads to resist payment: