Originally published on July 31, 2012
Keywords: pension schemes, financial support directions, FSDs
The Pensions Regulator (the "Regulator") has published a statement setting out its approach to the issuing of financial support directions ("FSDs") in insolvency situations. The statement is designed to calm fears following the decision in the joined Nortel and Lehman cases that the "super priority" of FSDs could have a negative impact on the corporate rescue and lending industries.
An FSD requires the recipient to put in place arrangements for the financial support of a defined benefit occupational pension scheme. It may only be issued to a party who is connected or associated with a participating employer in the scheme.
In 2009, FSDs were issued against a number of companies in the Nortel Networks and Lehman Brothers groups. All the recipient companies had entered insolvency proceedings at the time that the FSDs were issued. The administrators of the recipient companies applied to the High Court for a determination as to the nature of an FSD for the purposes of the statutory insolvency priority order. The High Court reluctantly held that an FSD ranked as an administration expense and therefore had priority over all creditors other than those with fixed charges. The Court of Appeal upheld the decision1.
The decision raised concerns that giving such "super priority" status to FSDs could damage the corporate rescue culture by preventing administrators from recovering their costs and could make banks less willing to lend to companies with a defined benefit pension scheme in their group by preventing them recovering their debt.
The Regulator's statement contains a number of key points:
- The decision in the Nortel and Lehman cases has not changed the Regulator's approach to seeking financial support for pension schemes, and the same approach would be followed whether an FSD ranked as an expense or a provable debt.
- The Regulator is aware of the importance of effective corporate rescue and lending cultures and does not wish nor intend to frustrate them.
- In practice, the fears expressed concerning the potential impact of the decision on the corporate rescue and lending cultures are unlikely to be realised for a number of reasons including the following:
- An FSD only requires a form of support to be put in place and does not specify a monetary amount or the form of such support. When assessing whether the support proposed by an FSD recipient is reasonable, the Regulator will consider a number of factors including: the position under insolvency law had the FSD been issued before the insolvency event; the recipient's financial circumstances; and the interests of directly affected parties including the claims of the recipient's other creditors. An FSD is unlikely to lead to a contribution amounting to the scheme's entire deficit.
- FSD liabilities are "necessary disbursements" of the administrator and therefore rank below most other administration expenses. Moreover, the Regulator would not object in most circumstances to a court application to vary the order of priority to rank FSD liabilities behind the administrator's reasonable remuneration, and would consider proposals to re-order other categories of administration expense above FSD liabilities.
- The Regulator also points out that certain key expenses incurred by an administrator in keeping a business running with a view to securing its sale will already have priority under the insolvency rules over any costs of complying with an FSD.
- Although the process of determining whether to issue an FSD can be lengthy, the Regulator will not deliberately prolong the process until after an insolvency event in order to take advantage of the "super priority" status of FSDs. The Regulator also encourages administrators and other interested parties such as lenders to approach the Regulator before, or at the start of, the insolvency process to discuss any potential regulatory action.
The Regulator's recognition of the concerns about the impact of the decision in the Nortel and Lehman cases will be welcomed by the insolvency industry. However, despite the Regulator's comments as to their obligation to act reasonably when considering proposals for financial support put forward by an insolvent recipient of an FSD, each case will still depend on its particular facts and the Regulator's assessment of what is reasonable may not be the same as that of a lender.
Give the breadth of the approach in the cases where regulatory action has been taken, it remains challenging for advisers to give comfort to lender and insolvency practitioner clients. Until cases like Nortel and Lehman run their course, uncertainties will remain. Lenders are therefore likely to remain concerned about their ability to recover their debt where an FSD is issued once insolvency proceedings have commenced.
1 A further appeal to the Supreme Court has been made but has not yet been heard.
Visit us at mayerbrown.com
Mayer Brown is a global legal services provider comprising legal practices that are separate entities (the "Mayer Brown Practices"). The Mayer Brown Practices are: Mayer Brown LLP and Mayer Brown Europe – Brussels LLP, both limited liability partnerships established in Illinois USA; Mayer Brown International LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated in England and Wales (authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and registered in England and Wales number OC 303359); Mayer Brown, a SELAS established in France; Mayer Brown JSM, a Hong Kong partnership and its associated entities in Asia; and Tauil & Chequer Advogados, a Brazilian law partnership with which Mayer Brown is associated. "Mayer Brown" and the Mayer Brown logo are the trademarks of the Mayer Brown Practices in their respective jurisdictions.
© Copyright 2012. The Mayer Brown Practices. All rights reserved.
This Mayer Brown article provides information and comments on legal issues and developments of interest. The foregoing is not a comprehensive treatment of the subject matter covered and is not intended to provide legal advice. Readers should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to the matters discussed herein.