Insolvency Oracle

Developments in UK insolvency by Michelle Butler


Leave a comment

SIP9 – Reading Between the Lines

Peru573 colourfix

How are we coping in this (new) SIP9 vacuum? Well, nature abhors a vacuum and it seems to me that we’re all plugging the gap in our own ways.

One IP told me that he had incurred time costs of c.£4,000 producing his first fees estimate and I heard another IP say that he was not going to seek fees approval on any case until the new SIP9 is in force. Having raised some questions about the RPBs’ recent announcement on SIP9, I was told that I was reading too much into it, but what do they expect given the dearth of guidance?

We have learnt that the new SIP9 will not contain a suggested format. IPs seem almost unanimous in their belief that this is counter-productive (not to mention costly!).  We are led to believe that it’s what the major creditors want, but the comments I have heard and seen from creditors are far from clear: they seem to want simultaneously more information but shorter reports, more prescription (even more legislation?  Give me strength!) but also a bespoke approach!  It will be interesting to read R3’s promised guidance.

I am sympathetic to the IP who is not even going to propose fees resolutions until he sees the new SIP9. Alternatively, we could gamble on what the final SIP9 will look like or we could just concentrate on making fees estimates rules-compliant for now and live with the prospect of having to revisit systems in November.  Both approaches are unattractive and make a mockery of the Insolvency Service’s Impact Assessment that estimated it would take each IP only 1 hour to become rules-ready!

So what are we expected to do now in applying the new rules?

The Consultation Draft SIP9

The draft rules were laid before Parliament on 3 March 2015. The draft SIP9 consultation was issued 5 months later.  It is perhaps not surprising therefore that, 2 ½ months further on, we’re still waiting for a SIP9.

Why does it take so long to finalise SIPs?  Having sat around the JIC table, I think I know why.  But it’s just not acceptable, is it?  This is especially so in view of the fact that the consultation draft SIP9 threatened to introduce new standards that would involve fundamental changes to time-recording systems and reporting formats.

I will save further breath on saying any more about the consultation draft, but if you are curious about what I had to say about it, you can see my consultation response here: SIP9 consult response and my mark-up of the draft SIP here: SIP9 markup.

Whilst I don’t have any idea how the final SIP9 will compare with the consultation draft, I do wonder how we are to read the R3’s recently-released Creditors’ Guides to Fees.

New Creditors’ Guides to Fees

R3’s new Creditors’ Guides to Fees were released on its website on 1 October without fanfare. At first glance, it is easy to assume that nothing has changed (I made that mistake and, as a result, asked R3 to return the old Guides to their page and date the Guides clearly, which R3 very swiftly did – thank you).

However, a closer look at the new Guides reveals that, not only do they incorporate the new rules of course, but they include much of the draft SIP9.  I am sure that the Guides will attract few (if any!) readers, but isn’t it a nonsense that the Guides are intended to explain to creditors what IPs do, but at present they describe standards that are not even enshrined in the statute or SIPs?!

The Guides include a number of new “should”s that appeared in the draft SIP9 but that IPs are probably not following completely at present. For example, the Guides repeat the draft SIP9’s list of “key issues of concern”, about which office holders should explain “in a way which facilitates clarity of understanding”:

  • the work the office holder anticipates will be done, and why that work is necessary;
  • the anticipated cost of that work, including any expenses expected to be incurred in connection with it;
  • whether it is anticipated that the work will provide a financial benefit to creditors, and if so what benefit (or if the work provided no direct financial benefit, but was required by statute);
  • the work actually done and why that work was necessary;
  • the actual costs of the work, including any expenses incurred in connection with it, as against any estimate provided; and
  • whether the work has provided a financial benefit to creditors, and if so what benefit (or if the work provided no direct financial benefit, but was required by statute).

Other “should”s appearing in the Guides include:

  • Where it is practical to do so, the office holder should provide an indication of the likely return to creditors when seeking approval for the basis of his remuneration.
  • When approval for a fixed amount or a percentage basis is sought, the office holder should explain why the basis requested is expected to produce a fair and reasonable reflection of the work that the office holder anticipates will be undertaken.

Fortunately, the Guides do not repeat the draft SIP9 in all aspects.  For example, they do not repeat para 10 of the draft SIP9, which recommended new divisions of work: Statutory Compliance; Asset Realisation; Distribution and Investigation.  They also omit draft SIP9 para 11’s references to the use of blended rates.  I suspect these paras have been omitted precisely because they were not “should”s in the draft SIP9 (although the language used in the draft suggests a stick is waving in the shadows).

Thus, the Guides give the creditors the impression that IPs are working in compliance with the draft SIP9’s standards, but what message have we received from the RPBs?

The RPBs’ Announcement

On 30 September, the IPA emailed its members on “SIP9 Transitional Arrangements” and the ICAEW made the same announcement publicly on 9 October (http://goo.gl/MrExtE).  I assume that the other RPBs/IS conveyed the same message to their members/IPs.

The key message was that, until the new SIP9 is issued (est. on or before 1 November) and/or it becomes effective (est. 1 December), the “principles” of the current SIP9 should be applied “as these remain ostensibly unchanged in the new SIP”.

However, I have some questions on the announcement:

  • “Insolvency Practitioners should apply the principles of the current SIP” – does this mean that IPs will not be taken to task if they do not apply the Key Compliance Standards of the current SIP? Some might argue: if IPs were complying with the letter of SIP9 prior to 1 October, why would they take the time to deviate from the SIP9 detail now? My answer would be: because fixing systems to comply with the new rules is disruptive enough, so much has needed to change. Therefore, if we could remove some of the detail of the old SIP9 – a lot of which doesn’t sit well in our apparent new world of narratives good, numbers bad – life could be so much easier.
  • “The existing SIP9 will be withdrawn” – does this mean that the new SIP9 will apply to new and old cases? If so, this is even more reason to try to avoid right now maintaining (and for some IPs, changing) systems to ensure that the letter of the current SIP9 is met.
  • “IPs should refer to the new Rules and also to Dear IPs 65 and 68… should they need to issue an estimate of their fees in advance of the implementation of the new SIP” – who needs to issue a fees estimate? Does this mean that IPs are doing the right thing, if they refrain from seeking fee approval at all in this hiatus period? Are the RPBs telling IPs for example to hold S98s, get the jobs in, but wait until December before proposing postal resolutions? This would seem to run contrary to the draft “Explanatory Note” that accompanied the consultation draft SIP9, which stated that fees requests should be considered “at the earliest opportunity”… but then of course that was only draft.

Dear IPs

To be fair, I think the Insolvency Service has done a reasonable job with Dear IPs 65 and 68.

Yes, of course, we all knew they would seek to “clarify” the rules’ reference to the “liquidator” providing fees-related information and have stated: “The use of the word ‘liquidator’ is not intended to preclude an insolvency practitioner from providing this information ahead of a s98 meeting at which s/he is subsequently appointed”… but from what I have heard, it seems that this is convincing very few IPs.

Also, whilst I can see what the Service is getting at, I do feel a little nervous about using the ‘unused’ part of an Administrator’s fees estimate to enable the subsequently-appointed Para 83 CVL Liquidator to draw fees. I think it is wonderfully pragmatic of the Insolvency Service and the rules seem to allow it, but I just wonder what the regulators would say if they saw it.  I don’t fancy being the first one to debate the subject with a monitor.

I also wish the Service would take greater care when referring to “fees”, because sometimes I think they mean “time costs” (or “remuneration charged”, as the rules put it, although this phrase is behind some of the confusion, I think). For example, Dear IP 68 states “as work cannot stop on a case, there may be instances where an office-holder exceeds the fees estimate before approval is sought/obtained”.  Err… I don’t think the Service exactly means this, but rather that the office holder may incur time costs in excess of the fees estimate, don’t you think?

But the Dear IPs have stuck pretty-much to the rules – which is to be expected and for which I am thankful – so, if IPs are hoping to read more about how to put the rules into practice, the Dear IPs probably will leave them wanting.

A Pig’s Ear

In summary, we are currently navigating our way through:

  • The Insolvency Rules 2015, which are not without flaws (see my previous posts, http://goo.gl/9mrWl4 and http://goo.gl/inIYEd);
  • Dear IPs 65 and 68;
  • The existing SIP9, which was drafted a world ago when the focus was on explaining what work you had done, not what work you anticipate doing;
  • The RPBs’ announcement, which seems to advise a business-as-usual approach despite the new rules being so different;
  • New Creditors’ Guides to Fees that include some requirements of the draft SIP9, which have not yet made their way into a publicly-available final SIP; and
  • If you feel like gambling, the consultation draft SIP9 and Explanatory Note.

I understand that some delegates to last week’s R3 SPG Forum were hoping for much more guidance on the new rules, but I am struggling to see what could possibly have been said. R3 has promised additional guidance, but understandably they want to wait to check that this is compatible with the final SIP9.

Personally, I have tried to help spread some knowledge by presenting a free-access webinar for the ICAEW on the detail of the new rules (http://goo.gl/93nDb0) and presenting at other ICAEW and R3 events in an attempt to highlight some practical steps.  I have also recorded a webinar for the Compliance Alliance on the practicalities and written much of this down for my clients.  I’m sure that other compliance consultants have been doing much the same, but we all have been working with the suspicion that, once we see the final SIP9, we may have to have a rethink.  I would also not be surprised if monitors’ “recommendations” evolve over time and we see a further revised SIP9 a year or so down the line.

So much for greater transparency!

Advertisements


Leave a comment

Regulatory Hot Topics: (2) Administration Technicalities

IMGP2906

I’m itching to blog about the new legislation, but that’s all a bit taxing so close to the Easter weekend.  Therefore, I’ll continue with my summary of points made in the R3 webinar.  This week: Administration Technicalities.

For my clients, this post may sound all very familiar, as I’ve pulled most of this from my last newsletter.  However, I’ve added some new points about the SBEE Act at the end of this post.

Matthew Peat and I agreed that failing to meet the statutory provisions for administrations is one of the most common issues identified on review visits.  I’m not at all surprised, as the legislation is extraordinarily (and in many respects, I think, unnecessarily) complicated… and it’s only going to get even more complicated with the Small Business, Enterprise & Employment Act and the Insolvency (Amendment) Rules 2015 (the IP fees rules) – but that’s for another day.

Areas that seem to cause difficulties include:

Pre-administration costs

It should be remembered that the requirement to disclose in the Proposals (and seek approval of any unpaid) pre-administration costs relates, not only to the charges of the IP, but to other costs incurred pre-appointment such as the solicitors’ or agents’ fees.

It is also evident that the RPBs do not believe that estimates of pre-administration costs comply with the Rules and they expect you to contact third parties and establish the quantum of their pre-administration costs in order to disclose them properly in the Proposals.  Also, if any payments from the estate to third parties exceed the (estimated) pre-administration costs as they appeared in the Proposals, do not be surprised if an RPB monitor suggests that the excess is unauthorised.

Most IPs have cottoned on by now that the Rules specifically state that approval of pre-administration costs does not form part of the Administrator’s Proposals (even though R2.33 requires that the Proposals include details of pre-administration costs).  However, there seem to be still the odd flawed template or two in circulation that do not present a separate specific resolution for the approval of pre-administration costs.

Statement of affairs

There have occasions when a statement of affairs (“SoA”) has not been submitted by the director(s), but the Proposals haven’t included the alternative required by R2.33(2)(g) of details of the financial position of the company (which usually takes the form of the Administrator’s own estimated SoA).

It is perhaps worth adding that this rule also requires a list of creditors (names, addresses, debts and any security) – whether or not the directors have submitted an SoA – and “an explanation as to why there is no statement of affairs” (although personally I cannot see that any explanation is going to be likely, other than “it has been requested but the director has not yet provided one”, particularly where Proposals have been issued swiftly after appointment).

How the purpose of the administration is to be achieved

If the Proposals explain that the Administrator thinks that the second administration objective is achievable, then the Proposals should explain why you believe that the result for creditors as a whole is going to be better than if the company were wound up (without first having been in administration).

Statement of expenses

Progress reports – not only in administrations, but in all other cases (apart from VAs and Receiverships) – all need to include a statement of the expenses incurred by the office holder during the period of the report, whether or not payment has been made in respect of them during the period.

It is important to remember that this includes more than simply the office holder’s time costs and disbursements, so this again means that solicitors, agents etc. need to be contacted to establish what is on their clocks.  Also, do not forget items such as insurance premiums and statutory advertising.  In addition, the Rules do not set a de minimis: all and any expenses incurred must be disclosed.  There have been some suggestions that the regulators might take a proportionate view of the disclosure of expenses, but personally I wouldn’t risk it.

Extensions

If seeking an extension via creditors’ consent, make sure that you approach the right creditors.

In every case, you will need to obtain the consent of all the secured creditors.

Whether you approach also the preferential or unsecured creditors as a whole will depend on what you wrote in the Proposals: per Para 78(2), if you have made a Para 52(1)(b) statement, you need to approach preferential creditors, if you think that a distribution to them will be made.  This is different from seeking approval to fees: in that case, under R2.106(5A) you need to seek preferential creditors’ approval to fees, not only if you intend paying a distribution, but also if you have paid a distribution.

However, events could have moved on since you issued the Proposals: by the time you contemplate an extension, the anticipated outcome might have changed.  What if your Proposals did not include a Para 52(1)(b) statement, but now you don’t think that a dividend will be paid to non-prefs?  Who do you approach for approval of an extension?

Assuming that your Proposals have accommodated alternative outcomes (such that you don’t believe you need to issue revised Proposals), Para 78 still indicates that whether you go to prefs or unsecureds in general depends on what you stated the anticipated outcome was in your Proposals.  However, to show consideration for the apparent spirit behind the provisions, it would seem prudent to consider also which creditors are in the frame at the time that you seek an extension, to ensure that you achieve the requisite majority from them too.

Extension Progress Reports

Whichever way you seek consent to an extension, you will need to issue a progress report (which is one reason why I am nervous about including in Proposals the power for the Administrator to extend without further recourse – because Proposals are not a progress report).  The usual one month deadline applies to these extension progress reports, so if you have only asked secureds/prefs to consent to the extension, make sure that you circulate the progress report to all other creditors – as well as send a copy to the Registrar for filing – within the month.

The same goes for court extensions: you will have produced a progress report to accompany your court application and, in the event that the court does not grant your extension before the month-end, you will need to send a copy of the report to all creditors and for filing and then send another circular (for the Notice of Extension) once you have received the order for the extension.

Finally, remember that the 6 month cycle for progress reports is counted from the period-end of the last report.  Therefore, where a progress report to accompany an extension request has been issued – which can be at any time – diaries will need changing so that the next progress report is 6 months after that report (i.e. no longer 6-monthly from the date of appointment).  This can prove a nightmare for automated diary systems… and, as you need to provide sufficient lead-time before any extension period ends in order to consider whether to apply for a further extension, make sure that you don’t leave diary prompts for progress reports too tight on the 6-month deadlines.

Exits

RPBs appear to be expecting decisions over exit routes to be clearly and contemporaneously evidenced.  This is also valuable in the event that things do not turn out the way you had hoped, e.g. where you moved to CVL because you had thought that there would be sufficient realisations to pay a dividend to unsecured creditors, but something happened later to scupper that outcome.

I also understand that it is generally accepted that Para 83’s reference to an Administrator thinking that a distribution will be made to unsecured creditors is a reference to non-preferential unsecured creditors only.  Thus, if you are nearing the end of the administration and you think that only a preferential distribution will be paid, you will need to seek an extension and pay it through the administration.  Alternatively – and if HMRC (or, of course, any other creditor) has modified the Proposals so that the exit must be by liquidation – you will need to seek a compulsory winding-up order.

Small Business, Enterprise & Employment Act 2015

I couldn’t resist one point on this new Act.  Although some items come into force on 26 May 2015, there are no transitional provisions (yet).  In other words, unless a new Order changes things, the provisions will apply to all existing insolvency appointments, not only future ones.

The Act amends Para 65 to the effect that, from 26 May 2015, administrators may pay a prescribed part dividend without the court’s permission.  However, the Act also amends Para 83 so that it will read that an administration may move to CVL only where the administrator thinks (“that the total amount which each secured creditor of the company is likely to receive has been paid to him or set aside for him” – no change there – and) “that a distribution will be made to unsecured creditors of the company (if there are any) which is not a distribution by virtue of section 176A(2)(a)”, i.e. a prescribed part distribution.  In other words, from 26 May 2015, the Para 83 move to CVL cannot be used to pay a prescribed part dividend (unless you also think there is going to be a non-prescribed part dividend as well).

Thus I would strongly recommend that you revisit your standard Proposals template to make sure that they do not run contrary to the post-May position: you do not want to be stuck with approved Proposals requiring you to exit by CVL to pay a prescribed part dividend, when the Act won’t allow you to do it.  Having looked at some standard Proposals, I reckon many will have sufficient wriggle-room to avoid you having your hands tied, but it would be worth checking the Proposals of any cases where you anticipate a prescribed part dividend: you still have a month or so during which you can do a Para 83 move to CVL before the Act takes effect.

My thanks to Deborah Manzoori and Jo Harris for pointing out this issue to me.

My thoughts on more wrinkles in the new legislation will follow soon.  In the meantime, have a lovely long weekend.


Leave a comment

Regulatory Hot Topics: (1) the SIPs

4017 Uluru

Last month, I conducted a webinar for R3 with Matthew Peat, senior compliance officer with ACCA, entitled Regulatory Hot Topics.  The aim was to highlight some areas that we both had seen some IPs stumble over.  I thought there might be value in summarising some of the issues we covered.  In this post, I cover just the SIPs.

SIP2 – Investigations by Office Holders in Administrations and Insolvent Liquidations

Some firms are using checklists that are not well-designed for the task of carrying out a SIP2 investigation.  In particular:

  • Checklists should reflect the fundamental difference between a SIP2 investigation and considering matters of relevance for a D-report/return. SIP2 requires the administrator/liquidator to consider whether there may be any prospect of recovery in relation to antecedent transactions.
  • Checklists should guide you through the SIP2 requirement of conducting an initial assessment on all cases and then moving on to making a decision on what further work, if any, is merited.
  • Checklists should help you meet the SIP2 requirement to document findings, considerations and conclusions reached.

Other recommendations include:

  • Make collection of books and records a priority in the early days of an appointment.
  • SIP2 also requires the outcome of the initial assessment to be reported to creditors in the next progress report.  Although there is an obvious tension between full disclosure and keeping one’s powder dry for progressing any claims, it is not sufficient to report in every case that all investigations are confidential, remembering that SIP2 is not referring to D-reporting matters. If nothing has been revealed that might lead to a potential recovery, this should be reported; if something has been identified, then some thought will need to be given as to what can be disclosed.

SIP3.1 & SIP3.2 – IVAs & CVAs

The “new” SIPs have been in force now for eight months, so all work should now have been done to adapt processes to the new requirements.  In particular, the SIPs require “procedures in place to ensure”, which is achieved more often by clear and evidenced internal processes.  It is also arguable that, even if particular problems have not appeared on the cases reviewed on a monitoring visit, you could still come in for criticism if the procedures themselves would not ensure that an issue were dealt with properly if it arose.

The SIPs require assessments to be made “at each stage of the process”, i.e. when acting as adviser, preparing the proposal, acting as Nominee, and acting as Supervisor.  At each stage, files need to evidence consideration of questions such as:

  • Is the VA still appropriate and viable?
  • Can I believe what I am being told and is the debtor/director going to go through with this?
  • Are necessary creditors going to support it?
  • Do the business and assets need more protection up to the approval of the VA?

The SIPs elevate the need to keep generous notes on all discussions and, in addition to the old SIP3’s meeting notes, require that all discussions with creditors/ representatives be documented.

I would recommend taking a fresh look at advice letters to ensure that every detail of SIP3.1/3.2 is addressed.  The following suggested ways of dealing with some of the SIP requirements are only indicators and do not represent a complete answer:

  • “The advantages and disadvantages of each available option”

Personally, I think the Insolvency Service’s “In Debt – Dealing with your Creditors” makes a better job at covering this item than R3’s “Is a Voluntary Arrangement right for me?” booklet, although neither will be sufficient on its own: in your advice letter, you should make application to the debtor’s personal circumstances so that they clearly understand their options.

Similarly, you can create a generic summary of a company’s options, which would be a good accompaniment to your more specific advice letter for companies contemplating a CVA.

  • “Any potential delays and complications”

This suggests to me that you should cover the possibilities of having to adjourn the meeting of creditors, if crucial modifications need to be considered.

  • “The likely duration of the IVA (or CVA)”

Mention of the IVA indicates that a vague reference to 5 years as typical for IVAs will not work; the advice letter needs to reflect the debtor’s personal circumstances.

  • “The rights of challenge to the VA and the potential consequences”

This appears to be referring to the rights under S6 and S262 regarding unfair prejudice and material irregularity.  I cannot be certain, but it would seem unlikely that the regulators expect to see these provisions in detail, but rather a plain English reference to help impress on the debtor the seriousness of being honest in the Proposal.

  • “The likely costs of each [option available] so that the solution best suited to the debtor’s circumstances can be identified”

This is a requirement only in relation to IVAs, not CVAs, and includes the provision of the likely costs of non-statutory solutions (depending, of course, on the debtor’s circumstances).

An Addendum: SIP3.3 – Trust Deeds

After the webinar, I received a question on whether similar points could be gleaned from SIP3.3, which made me feel somewhat ashamed that we’d not covered it at all.  To be fair, neither Matthew nor I has had much experience reviewing Trust Deeds, so personally I don’t feel that I can contribute much to the understanding of people working in this field, but I thought I ought to do a bit of compare-and-contrast.

An obvious difference between SIP3.3 and the VA SIPs is that the former includes far more detail and prescription regarding consideration of the debtor’s assets (especially heritable property), fees, and ending the Trust Deed.  However, setting those unique items aside, I was interested in the following comparisons:

  • The stages and roles in the process

SIP3.3 identifies only two stages/roles: advice-provision and acting as Trustee.  I appreciate that the statutory regime does involve the IP acting only in one capacity (as opposed to the two in VAs), but I am still a little surprised that there is no “right you’ve decided to enter into a Trust Deed, so now I will prepare one for you” stage.

SIP3.3 also omits reference to having procedures in place to ensure that, “at each stage of the process”, an assessment is made (SIP3.1 para 10).  Rather, SIP3.3 requires only that an assessment is made “at an appropriate stage” (SIP3.3 para 18).  Personally I prefer SIP3.3 in this regard, as I fear that SIP3.1/3.2’s stage-by-stage approach is too cumbersome and risks the assessment being rushed through by a bunch of tick-boxes, instead of considering the circumstances of each case more intelligently and purposefully.

  • The options available

There are some differences as regards the provision of information and advice on the options available, but I am not sure if this is intended to be anything more than just stylistic differences.

For example, SIP3.1 prompts for the provision of information on the advantages and disadvantages of each available option at paras 8(a) (advice), 11(a) (documentation), and 12(e) (initial advice), but SIP3.3 refers to this information only at para 20(a) (documentation).  Does this mean that IPs are not required to discuss advantages and disadvantages, but just hand over details to the debtor?

In addition, SIP3.3 does not specifically require “the likely costs of each [option]” (SIP3.1 para 12(e)).  The assessment section also does not include “the solutions available and their viability” (SIP3.1 para 10(a)); I wonder if this is because there is less opportunity in a Trust Deed to revisit the decision to go ahead with it, whereas in VAs the Proposal-preparation/Nominee stage can be lengthy giving rise to a need to revisit the decision depending on how events unfold.

Having said that, I do like SIP3.3’s addition that the IP “should be satisfied that a debtor has had adequate time to think about the consequences and alternatives before signing a Trust Deed” (para 34).

  • Additional requirements

Other items listed in SIP3.3 that an IP needs to deal with pre-Trust Deed (for which there appears to be no direct comparison with SIP3.1/3.2) include:

  1. Advise in the initial circular to creditors, the procedure for objections (para 9);
  2. Assess whether the debtor is being honest and open (para 18(a));
  3. Assess the attitude (as opposed to the likely attitude in SIP3.1/3.2) of any key creditors and of the general body of creditors (para 18(c));
  4. Maintain records of the way in which any issues raised have been resolved (para 20(d));
  5. Summaries of material discussions/information should be sent to the debtor (para 20) (in IVAs, this need be done only if the IP considers it appropriate); and
  6. Advise the debtor that it is an offence to make false representations or to conceal assets or to commit any other fraud for the purpose of obtaining creditor approval to the Trust Deed (para 24).

 

SIP9 – Payments to Insolvency Office Holders and their Associates

The SIP9 requirement to “provide an explanation of what has been achieved in the period under review and how it was achieved, sufficient to enable the progress of the case to be assessed” fits in well with the statutory requirements governing most progress reports as regards reporting on progress in the review period.  Thus, although it often will be appropriate to provide context by explaining some events that occurred before the review period, try to avoid regurgitating lots of historic information and make it clear what actually occurred in the review period.

In addition, in order to meet the SIP9 principle, it would be valuable to reflect on the time costs incurred and the narrative of any progress report.  For example:

  • If time costs totalling £30,000 have been incurred making book debt recoveries of £20,000, why is that?       Are there some difficult debts still being pursued? Or perhaps you are prepared to take the hit on time costs. If these are the case, explain the position in the report.
  • If the time costs for trading-on exceed any profit earned, explain the circumstances: perhaps the ongoing trading ensured that the business/asset realisations were far greater than would have been the case otherwise; or perhaps something unexpected scuppered ongoing trading, which had been projected to be more successful.
  • If a large proportion of time costs is categorised under Admin & Planning, provide more information of the significant matters dealt with in this category, for example statutory reporting.

Other SIP9 reminders include:

  • If you are directing creditors to Guides to Fees appearing online, make sure that the link has not become obsolete and that it relates directly to the Guide, rather than to a home or section page.
  • Make sure that the Guide to Fees referenced (or enclosed) in a creditors’ circular is the appropriate one for the case type and the appointment date.
  • Make sure that reference is made to the location of the Guide to Fees (or it is enclosed) in, not only the first communication with creditors, but also in all subsequent reports.

 

In future posts, I’ll cover some points on the Insolvency Code of Ethics, case progression, technical issues in Administrations, and some tips on how monitors might review time costs.


5 Comments

Dear IP 64: is no news good news?

1705 Yosemite

Did you wonder what the RPS was going on about when it announced (Article 54, Dear IP 64) that the recent EAT judgment would not affect its claims-processing, but it has sought advice?  Bearing in mind that the RPS gets involved some way down the insolvency process, is there anything that IPs should be taking into account right now?

The Judgment: Bear Scotland Limited & Ors v Fulton & Ors

I briefly described the decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal in an earlier blog post: http://wp.me/p2FU2Z-8I.  In a nutshell, the EAT decided that the “normal remuneration”, to be used in calculating the employees’ claims for holiday pay, should include overtime that the employer was not bound to offer but that the employees were required to work (or could not unreasonably refuse to work), if requested (“non-guaranteed overtime”).

Permission to appeal was granted and it seemed widely-thought that an appeal was likely in relation to part of the EAT’s judgment, which limited claims for underpaid holiday pay to instances of underpayment not exceeded by a gap of more than three months.  However, the Unite union announced that it will not appeal (http://goo.gl/EqII77) and, as the Tribunal judge expressed the view that this issue alone was the arguable one, personally I’m not sure why the employers would pursue a further appeal.  Therefore, it seems unlikely that there will be an appeal (but I’m no lawyer).

The Government Task Force

I also mentioned in my earlier post that the government had set up a task force to assess the possible impact of the decision.

On 18 December 2014, the government announced its solution: http://goo.gl/kJ7sJu.  Unusually with no public consultation, it swiftly laid down regulations – the Deduction from Wages (Limitation) Regulations 2014 – to limit unlawful deductions claims to two years.  The regulations will come into force on 8 January 2015, although they will only take effect on claims made on or after 1 July 2015, so there is a 6-month window for claims to be lodged potentially going back to 1998 when the Working Time Directive was implemented in the UK.

It is undeniable that the Bear Scotland case precipitated these measures, although the Impact Assessment (“IA”) makes clear that the regulations will limit claims not only arising from this decision.  The IA mentions, for example, the ruling from the CJEU in the case of Lock v British Gas (see, e.g. my blog post: http://wp.me/p2FU2Z-82).  This case concluded that sales commission should be reflected in holiday pay calculations, although the UK application of this decision will not be known until the case is heard by the Leicester Tribunal, which I understand will not happen until February (http://goo.gl/ezx8Qj).

Although the regulations don’t actually affect the Bear Scotland decision, just the extent of businesses’ (and the RPS’) exposure to claims arising from the decision, the rhetoric doesn’t suggest that the government feels there is much risk that the decision might be overturned.  Then again, the regulations do simply plug a dangerous gap in the ERA96, so they are valuable whether or not Bear Scotland happened; the future is never left wanting for unexpected court decisions.

Dear IP 64

Given this background, I am somewhat surprised that the RPS has announced that it “will continue to process claims in the usual way until the expiry of the appeal period” of the EAT decision.  However, because I assume that the appeal period is largely a valuable pause in which the RPS can take advice and consider its next steps, what puzzles me a little more is: what action might the RPS take if there is no appeal?

The IA makes clear that “it is the worker’s responsibility to prove that they have a holiday pay claim in the employment tribunal”.  Thus, I would have thought that there is no obligation on the RPS – or by extension on insolvency office holders – to examine Company records to see whether past holiday pay claims have been calculated in line with the decision and, if not, look to adjust them.  However, I would also have thought that if any employees present a claim for unlawful deductions, whether to the RPS or to an IP, this could be dealt with without the need for the tribunal process, albeit quite rightly I think after the expiry of the appeal period.

But what about holiday pay claims that have not yet been processed?  Again, understandably the RPS will not want to pay out any enhanced holiday pay until the appeal period has expired.  Also, I assume, it will be for employees to make clear on their RP1s the “normal remuneration” that they expect to form the basis of their holiday pay calculation, although I don’t think that the RP1 form lends itself well to dealing with disclosure of non-guaranteed overtime – maybe another re-write is something that might appear after the appeal period has expired.

Thoughts for IPs

Finally, what about forms RP14A, which IPs complete to provide the RPS with basic information about employees made redundant from insolvent businesses?  The forms (I think) only ask for “basic pay”, so what should IPs be answering here?  I’m sure that IPs will not be criticised for acting on the Dear IP basis and continuing to complete RP14As “in the usual way until the expiry of the appeal period”, although personally this seems a little short-sighted to me.  If an IP were to know that employees’ holiday pay claims would be different if the Bear Scotland decision were applied, should he/she not take this into account when submitting an RP14A, at the very least alerting the RPS to the possible impact of the decision on the employees’ claims against the insolvent business in question?

Other questions arise by extension: should the IP make enquiries of insolvent business’ payroll departments to explore whether the effect of the decision has already been taken into account, or if it has not been considered, what effect it would have?

Of more concern to IPs dealing with a trading-on situation would be: how is the payroll department calculating holiday pay going forward?  IPs will not be want to be taken unawares by receiving claims for unlawful deductions long after the estate funds have been disbursed.

I also envisage this decision impacting on the TUPE obligation to provide to purchasers employee liability information, which would include any claims that the employer has reasonable grounds to believe that an employee may bring.

Of course, all this will already have been considered by ERA specialists and departments and IPs will not be short of solicitors who will be happy to advise.  Eventually also, we may receive an update from the RPS.


2 Comments

The Value of RPB Roadshows: Forewarned is Forearmed

IMGP9153

Having just returned from a fantastic trip to Vietnam and Cambodia, I have yet to catch up on domestic news, so I thought I’d plug the silence gap with some tips that I picked up from the RPBs’ autumn roadshows.

Ethical issues featured heavily at the ICAEW roadshow, whilst the IPA roadshow raised some controversial Administration points, and both RPBs had much to say about handling complaints in the wake of the Insolvency Service’s Complaints Gateway.

Ethical Issues (ICAEW Roadshow, Birmingham, 9 October 2014)

Allison Broad of the ICAEW described the following ethical dos and don’ts:

• In order to identify any prior relationships before deciding whether to take an appointment, do not rely solely on the company director signing off confirmation that s/he is not aware of any conflicts/relationships; internal checks are still required.

• Ensure that relationships are evaluated, not merely identified. Allison gave the example of an IP who had noted on his ethics checklist that the director of the prospective appointment had been a director of eight other companies that had gone insolvent with the IP acting, but the checklist evidenced no evaluation of the threat to the ethical principles that these prior relationships presented. Personally, I have also seen cases – although not quite as striking as this – where a prior relationship existed but it was not noted on the ethics checklist. Even though an IP may have concluded that a relationship is not sufficiently significant to require the introduction of safeguards or to raise concerns about the appropriateness of taking the appointment, files should disclose the relationship and evidence the IP’s consideration of its significance. In my view, failure to do so, not only could constitute a breach of the Ethics Code (paragraphs 74 and 75), but is also bound to raise suspicions that checklists are completed on auto-pilot and insufficient thought is given to ethics matters.

• Ensure that the IP signs off the ethics checklist, if not before the appointment, then as close to it as possible in order to demonstrate that consideration of ethical matters had been considered before appointment.

• Keep ethical threats under review throughout the life of the case, e.g. by including on case reviews a question – not a simple tick-box – as regards how any safeguards employed to manage a threat have been working.

• Review regular introducers’ websites prior to taking the first appointment from those sources and regularly thereafter, as website contents are frequently refreshed. Allison acknowledged that pre-packs and phoenix services may be covered on websites, but she urged caution when dealing with introducers who position these items at the top of their lists or prominently.

• If an IP feels that the quality of an introducer’s advice to directors/debtors is below par, it is not sufficient to allow the relationship to continue on the basis that at least the IP can ensure that s/he provides good advice. The ICAEW expects IPs to write to the introducer with any concerns and ask that changes be made to their websites and practices. They would then expect IPs to check whether these had been actioned and, if the introducer does not do so, the IPs should terminate the introduction relationship.

Administration Technicalities (IPA Roadshow, London, 22 October 2014)

Caroline Sumner of the IPA highlighted several issues identified on monitoring visits.  However, I think I must have been in a particularly argumentative mood on the day, as my notes are fairly scant on Caroline’s comments about SIP16, SIP13, and the new SIPs 3 – from memory, I think that none of this was rocket science; Caroline just highlighted the need to get them right – but I went to town on some other points she made:

  • Caroline described the Insolvency Service’s view that Administrators’ Proposals should describe only one of the Para 3 administration objectives that the Administrators propose to achieve.

I have a problem with this: firstly, in what respect is this reflected by the statutory requirements?  R2.33(2)(m) requires Proposals to include “a statement of how it is envisaged the purpose of administration will be achieved”.  An old Dear IP (chapter 1, article 5) referred to this and also to Para 111(1) of Schedule B1, which states “’the purpose of administration’ means an objective specified in paragraph 3”, leading to the Service’s conclusion that “administrators should not simply include all three objectives with no attempt to identify which is the relevant objective”.  That’s all well and good – and I think that IPs have moved away from many early-style Proposals, which did reproduce Para 3 verbatim – but I do not see how these statutory provisions require an IP to pin to the mast only one Para 3 objective to endeavour to achieve.

Here’s an example: what would be wrong with an Administrator’s Proposals stating that the company in administration is continuing to trade with a view to completing a sale of the business as a going concern, which should generate a better result for creditors as a whole – and thus achieve administration objective (b) – but if a business sale is not possible, a break-up sale is likely to result only in a distribution to secured/preferential creditors – and thus achieve administration objective (c)?  In my mind, this is the most transparent, comprehensive, and helpful explanation to creditors and certainly is far better than that which the Insolvency Service seems to expect IPs to deliver: for Proposals simply to state that a going concern sale is being pursued to achieve objective (b) is to provide only half the story and, I would argue, would not comply with R2.33(2)(m), as the Proposals would not be explaining “how it is envisaged the purpose of administration will be achieved” in the event that a business sale is not completed.  Para 111(1) simply leads me to an interpretation that an Administration’s eventual outcome – not necessarily the Administrator’s prospective aim – is the achieving of a single objective, which is supported by the Act’s presentation of the objectives as an hierarchy notwithstanding that in practice it is easy to see how more than one objective might be achieved (e.g. rescue of the company and a better result for creditors as a whole).

At the roadshow, I asked Caroline whether she felt that, if the singly-selected objective turned out to be not achievable, the Administrator would need to go to the expense of issuing revised Proposals.  She accepted that, of course, the IP would need to consider that requirement (although I wonder how the decision in Re Brilliant Independent Media Specialists (https://insolvencyoracle.com/2014/10/07/how-risky-is-it-to-act-contrary-to-a-creditors-committees-wishes-and-other-questions/) impacts on this).  Is this really what the government intended?  What happened to the drive to eliminate unnecessary costs?

Finally, I think that this view puts a new colour on the statutory requirement to issue Administrators’ Proposals as soon as reasonably practicable.  Could it be argued that asarp is only reached once the Administrator is reasonably confident of the single objective that he/she envisages achieving?  The RPBs have tried hard to promote the asarp requirement, rather than the 8-week back-stop, but insisting on a single objective in Proposals could encourage a turn in the tide.

I have asked Caroline to clarify the Insolvency Service’s view.  However, if the Service does expect IPs to adopt this approach, I think they should set it down in a Dear IP – of course, assuming that my arguments hold no water – so that all IPs are forced to accept the same burdens.

  • Caroline repeated the Dear IP article that extensions should be sought at the outset only in exceptional cases where it is clear that more than 12 months will be required to complete the Administration.

Although Caroline didn’t go into the technicalities of how an extension might be agreed at an early stage, it gave me cause to revisit the Dear IP article (chapter 1 article 12).  It describes the “questionable” practice of seeking consent for an extension “with the administrator’s proposals including a conditional resolution regarding the extension of the administration, along the lines that if the administrator should think it desirable, then the administration would be extended by an additional six months”.  Over the years I have seen this done, but I have not seen it done properly, i.e. compliant with the Rules.

R2.112(2) requires requests to be accompanied by a progress report, but Proposals are not a progress report.  I guess that a Proposals circular could be fudged to fit the prescription for a progress report as set out in R2.47, but this would have consequences, such as the need to file the Proposals/report with a form 2.24B (as well as filing the Proposals individually) and the clock would be re-set so that the next progress report would be due 6 months afterwards.  Also, how does an Administrator meet the statutory requirement to issue a notice of extension as soon as reasonably practicable after consent has been granted, if s/he has obtained such a “conditional” resolution?

My recommendation would be to avoid seeking extensions in the Proposals altogether, but instead leave them until the first progress report is due.  Of course, if an Administrator has to convene a general meeting (or deal with business by correspondence) at a time other than the Para 51 meeting, this will attract some additional costs, but if the request is made at the time of the statutorily-required 6-month progress report, those additional costs are relatively small, aren’t they?

Complaints-Handling

Complaints-handling was covered at both the ICAEW and the IPA roadshow, which I suspect has as much, if not more, to do with the likely pressure from the Insolvency Service on RPBs as it has with any perceived extent of failings on the part of IPs.

Both Allison and Caroline covered the need to explain how complaints can be made to the Complaints Gateway, although I do feel that generally RPBs have not done much to publicise their “requirements”.  The only guidance I’ve seen is on the ICAEW’s blog – http://www.ion.icaew.com/insolvencyblog/post/Launch-of-the-insolvency-complaints-gateway – that refers to the need to disclose the Gateway to anyone who wants to complain and in engagement terms, if they refer to the firm’s complaints procedure.  This blog also stated that there was no need to inform creditors of existing cases, which leaves me wondering what the expectation is to communicate with creditors generally on post-Gateway cases.  Given the Insolvency Service’s emphasis on the Gateway, I am a little surprised that the RPBs seem to be relying on some kind of process of osmosis to get the message of their expectations out to IPs.

From the two roadshows that I attended, I sense that there is a general expectation that IPs’ websites will display details of the Gateway (although I hope that the RPBs will take a proportionate approach, given that some smaller practices’ websites are little more than a homepage).  I do not get the sense that the RPBs expect the Gateway’s details to be added to circulars to creditors generally, but only that they should be included in any correspondence with (potential) complainants.

Allison also highlighted that, whilst the ICAEW’s bye-laws (paragraph 1.2 at http://goo.gl/1frWQo) include a requirement that all new clients be informed of their right to complain to the ICAEW and be provided with the name of the firm’s principal to whom they should complain, when writing as an insolvency office-holder the need to refer parties to the Complaints Gateway takes precedence over this requirement.

Caroline commented that IPA monitoring visits will include a review of the practice’s internal complaints process to see how these are handled before the complainant resorts to the Gateway.  If complaints are not handled by the IP, the monitors will also be exploring how the IP is confident that complaints are dealt with appropriately.

Why Attend the Roadshows?

I hope that the above illustrates the value of attending an RPB roadshow.  However, I think it also illustrates the risk that we learn about previously unknown and not altogether satisfying views on regulatory matters.  I realise that I am not blameless in this regard: when I worked at the IPA, I also used the roadshows as a medium to convey my thoughts on issues identified in visits and self certifications, so I should not be surprised that this practice is continuing (or indeed that others hold views different to my own!).  I and many of my colleagues were ever conscious that there was no other medium for Regulation Teams to deliver such messages and forewarn IPs of hot topics and evolving regulatory expectations.  Dear IP was the only other method that came close, but as this is controlled by the Insolvency Service, I could only hope that the RPB perspective would not become lost in translation.

The Advantage of Written Guidance?

I hope that, if I’ve got the wrong end of any stick waved at either of the two roadshows, someone will shout – please?  Given the limited audience at roadshows and the risk of Chinese Whispers, it must be better for the RPBs to convey their messages in written form, mustn’t it?

“The 18 month Rule”

A recent example, however, illustrates that even written communications can be unsettling.  At http://www.ion.icaew.com/insolvencyblog/post/The-18-month-rule—it-s-for-real, a QAD reviewer’s blog starts by stating that “there is a suggestion from some compliance providers and trainers that the 18 month rule for fixing fees may not be definitive, and that you still have the option of applying to creditors after the expiry of the 18 month period”.  I shall start by confessing that it’s not me, honest: I’ve never had cause to scrutinise these provisions.  However, now that I do, I have to say that I am struggling to see how the Rules can be interpreted in the way that the Service and the ICAEW are promulgating.

The blog states: “Our interpretation is that if fees haven’t been fixed within 18 months it will be scale rate in bankruptcies or compulsories or a court application. We recently raised the issue with the Insolvency Service and their view is: ‘. . . after 18 months the liquidator is only entitled to fix fees in accordance with rule 4.127(6) unless the stated exceptions apply’.  Clearly this relates to liquidators in compulsory liquidations, but the principal extends.”

I have long thought that this indeed was what the Service had intended by the Rules amendments, but on closer inspection I’m afraid I really can’t see that this is what the Rules state.  R4.127(6) states: “Where the liquidator is not the official receiver and the basis of his remuneration is not fixed as above within 18 months… the liquidator shall be entitled to remuneration fixed in accordance with the provisions of Rule 4.127A.”

“Shall be entitled…”  When I reach state-pensioner age, I shall be entitled to travel on buses free of charge, but that does not mean that the only way I will be able to get to town is by taking a bus.  Similarly, after 18 months, the liquidator shall be entitled to remuneration on the scale rate, but does this mean that the liquidator is only entitled to fees on this basis?  What statutory provision actually prohibits the liquidator from seeking creditors’ approval of fees on another R4.127(2) basis after 18 months?

And how do the Rules “extend” this compulsory liquidation principle to CVLs?  R4.127(7-CVL) states: “If not fixed as above, the basis of the liquidator’s remuneration shall… be fixed by the court… but such an application may not be made by the liquidator unless the liquidator has first sought fixing of the basis in accordance with paragraph (3C) or (5) and in any event may not be made more than 18 months after the date of the liquidator’s appointment.”  Given that the construction of this rule is so different from R4.127(6), it is difficult to see how both rules can be considered as reflecting the same principle.  And in any event, this simply states that a court application may not be made after 18 months (which seems to be precisely the opposite of the ICAEW’s blog post!).  How can this rule be interpreted to the effect that the liquidator cannot seek creditors’ approval for fees after 18 months?  The Rule starts: “If not fixed as above…”, so the rest of the Rule is irrelevant if the fees are fixed as above, e.g. as specified in R4.127(5) by a resolution of a meeting of creditors; I see no provision “above” prohibiting the seeking of a creditors’ resolution after 18 months.

I shall be interested to see how this matter gets handled in a future Dear IP.  In the meantime, what should IPs do?  I reckon that the only certain approach is: seek approval for fees before the 18 months are ended!

(UPDATE 12/01/2015: for another view of the 18-month rule, take a look at Bill Burch’s blog, which to be fair pre-dated mine by some months: http://goo.gl/4ucKaF.  Bill posted another article today at http://goo.gl/jL3WNu, reminding IPs that the wisest course is to seek early fee approval whether or not we agree with the regulators’ interpretation.)

This blog illustrates to me that there must be a better way for the regulatory bodies to convey – considered and sound – explanations of certain Rules and their expectations to IPs.  As a compliance consultant, I suffer many a sleepless night worrying about whether my interpretation and understanding of current regulatory standards are aligned with my clients’ authorising bodies’ stance.  I do value my former colleagues’ openness and I do try to keep my ear to the ground with many of the authorising bodies – I’ll take this opportunity to make a quick plug for the R3 webinar on regulatory hot topics that I shall be presenting with Matthew Peat of ACCA in February 2015.  However, I believe there is a need and a desire in all quarters for the creation of a better kind of forum/medium for ensuring that we all – regulators, IPs, and compliance specialists – are singing from the same hymn sheet.

Have a lovely long break from work, everyone.  I’ll catch up again in the New Year.


1 Comment

Council Tax and IVAs: some more thoughts

044 fixed

The IPA has published an interesting article in its July 2014 magazine (accessible from http://www.ipa.uk.com Press & Publications>Insolvency Practitioner magazine) explaining how its Personal Insolvency Committee believes the judgment in Kaye v South Oxfordshire District Council impacts on past and future IVAs. I have some more thoughts…

The article points out that the judgment has no practical effect where the household income is shared between solvent and insolvent adult occupiers, because whatever “tax holiday” might be enjoyed by an insolvent occupier will be off-set by the fact that the council likely will re-bill the solvent occupier, with the effect that the household income and expenditure account is unchanged. The rest of this post assumes that the debtor is the sole adult occupier (although perhaps some points also might apply where all the adult occupiers are – or are intending to be shortly – in an insolvency process; I’ve not worked out whether a council’s “re-bill” of another occupier would be a pre- or post-insolvency liability…).

For new IVA Proposals, on the basis that the first (part) year’s council tax will be caught as an unsecured claim, the article states that “it may be advisable to consider… whether the proposal might make specific provision for an increased contribution during this period”. Fair enough. I hear that many IPs are doing this already.

For existing IVAs, however, the tone of the article makes it clear that there is no expectation for Supervisors to examine potentially overpaid council tax with a view to recovering any overpayment. The article goes so far as stating: “It is also believed that Counsel has expressed a view that this judgement would not be of retrospective effect”, which I find quite extraordinary. However, there is no doubting the commercial arguments against the Supervisor going to the effort of seeking to extract small refunds from a number of councils.

Of course, the IPA article is aimed at helping its members, so it is not surprising that it has not viewed the position from the debtor’s perspective. For example, could the debtor pursue a refund? I don’t see why not (although I’m not sure I rate their chances of easy success). Would it be a “windfall” caught by the IVA? I don’t see how, as it simply refunds the debtor for payments made post-IVA; it isn’t an asset that has been acquired after the IVA started.

Would the council be entitled to set off any refund due to the debtor (for council tax paid post-IVA) against the council’s unsecured claim? I don’t think so; set-off principles in insolvency apply only where the overpayment and the claim both occurred pre-insolvency, although I appreciate that this is not what the pre-January 2014 Protocol STC stated. Clause 17(6) used to say: “Where any creditor agrees, for whatever reason, to make a repayment to the debtor during the continuance of the arrangement, then that payment shall be used solely in reduction of that creditor’s claim in the first instance”. However, the January 2014 Protocol STC now state: “Where Section 323 of the Act applies and a creditor is obliged, for whatever reason, to make a payment to you during the continuance of the arrangement, then that payment shall be used first in reduction of that creditor’s claim”. S323 begins: “This section applies where before the commencement of the bankruptcy there have been mutual credits, mutual debts or other mutual dealings between the bankrupt and any creditor of the bankrupt proving or claiming to prove for a bankruptcy debt”… so as long as the debtor doesn’t become bankrupt, I don’t think S323 will ever apply in an IVA!

What about debtors who are in the first year of their IVAs (provided the IVA commenced after 1 April 2014)? Can they avoid paying the remaining council tax for the rest of the year on the basis that it now falls as an unsecured claim? Excepting the IPA’s comment that the Kaye judgment does not have retrospective effect, it seems that they can. Some words of caution, however: I can envisage that some councils may be a bit behind the times, so debtors may need to have a strong stomach to resist council pressure to pay up, remembering that a case precedent only exists to the point that another court sees things in a different light. The effect of pushing the year’s tax into the IVA might also be material: for example, the Protocol STC state that breach occurs when the debtor’s liabilities are more than 15% of that originally estimated and some IVAs may require a minimum dividend to be paid. If an increased council IVA claim could threaten the successful completion of an IVA containing terms such as these, one might like to think again…

Could a Supervisor demand increased contributions from a debtor who is not paying his council tax for the rest of the first year? Of course, it will depend on the IVA terms, but it seems to me that the Protocol STC don’t help a Supervisor seeking to do this. Clause 8(3) states that the debtor must tell his Supervisor asarp about any increase in income… but this is not an increase in income, it is a decrease in expenditure. Clause 10(11) states that, as a consequence of the Supervisor’s annual review of a debtor’s income and expenditure, the debtor will need to contribute 50% of any net surplus one month following the review. By the time the first annual review comes around, the “tax holiday” will have ended and the debtor again will be required to pay council tax, so the I&E will show no consequent surplus. Therefore, as far as I can see the Protocol STC do not provide for the Supervisor to recover any surplus arising from a decrease in expenditure in the first year of the IVA. Of course, this does not take into consideration the terms of the Proposal itself (or any variations in the standard, or any modified, terms) and the debtor can always offer the unexpected surplus to the Supervisor, which one would hope would go down well with the IVA creditors.

.
For background on the judgment itself, you might like to take a look at my earlier post – http://wp.me/p2FU2Z-5U – or R3’s Technical Bulletin 107.1.

(UPDATE 25/08/14: for another perspective, I recommend Debt Camel’s blog: http://debtcamel.co.uk/council-tax-insolvency/.  Sara highlights the difference in DROs (I think the reason this decision has no effect on DROs is because the remainder of the year’s council tax is a contingent liability and as such is not a qualifying debt for DRO purposes) and the possibility of debtors putting in formal complaints if the council does not acknowledge the effect of this decision.)


Leave a comment

HMRC clarifies VAT deregistration of insolvent businesses… but how does it work in practice?

IMGP2118

In April 2014, HMRC released a Business Brief – 13/14 (http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/briefs/vat/brief1314.htm) – which R3 circulated to its members on 1 May 2014. The Brief seemed pretty self-explanatory as regards future cases, but I have seen no commentary about how IPs should be handling cases where VAT deregistration has already taken place. I summarise below HMRC’s responses to my queries.

Scenario 1: a company became VAT deregistered after it had gone into liquidation and the liquidator (prior to the Brief) sold its assets on a plus VAT basis. What happens now?

The issue arising from the recent legal advice is that the asset purchaser may encounter difficulties reclaiming input VAT on the sale. In that event, it is likely that the purchaser would be told by HMRC to go back and obtain a valid invoice to evidence the sale and that would mean reinstating the VAT registration if possible. But HMRC will address this issue on a case by case basis as and when the situation arises. HMRC does not propose to revisit historical cases on mass nor does it expect IPs to do so.

Scenario 2: as a consequence of this Brief, an IP reviewed his caseload and identified some cases with assets as yet unsold, but they fall below the VAT registration threshold (of £81,000), so he does not propose to look at re-registering the insolvent entities for VAT. However, if then he sells the assets exclusive of VAT, can he still recover (via a VAT426) any VAT input on the costs incurred in selling those assets?

The rules around the VAT 426 process are set out at Section 7 of the Insolvency VAT Public Notice 700/56 (http://goo.gl/WYkYxs) and the clarification provided in the Brief has no impact on this process.

The basic principle here is that an office holder is entitled to recover the VAT element of costs incurred in the winding up of a VAT registered business. Therefore, as before, if a business had deregistered for VAT before the IP’s appointment, the IP needs to consider the circumstances surrounding that deregistration. If the business had deregistered due to having ceased trading shortly before the IP’s appointment, then HMRC will still consider a VAT 426 claim as the IP is winding up a business that was VAT registered when it was trading. On the other hand, if for example the business had deregistered voluntarily due to reduced turnover some time before the IP’s appointment, then the IP would not be winding up a VAT registered business and, therefore, would have no entitlement to reclaim input tax on behalf of that business.

Where VAT deregistration occurred after the IP’s appointment, although VAT426 claims should be considered on a case by case basis, the fact that some asset sales did not attract VAT because deregistration had occurred should not affect the IP’s ability to submit a VAT426 claim to recover the VAT input on the costs incurred.

Okay then, what about cases that have been deregistered for VAT where the unsold assets are over the VAT registration threshold? How does an IP go about re-registering the business for VAT?

Contact the National Insolvency Unit Helpdesk. The contact details for the Helpdesk are included at Section 1.4 of the Insolvency VAT Public Notice 700/56 (http://goo.gl/WYkYxs).

In the past, HMRC has issued VAT168 notices to IPs warning them that, unless they object, deregistration will take place automatically after 7 days. Given the difficulties that can be caused through a business deregistering prematurely, will HMRC change its approach to progressing automatic deregistration?

It appears that the VAT167 and VAT168 deregistration enquiries will still be issued. Under VAT legislation, HMRC is entitled to cancel a VAT registration without the registered person’s express consent, but only where HMRC is “satisfied” that the criteria for registration no longer applies (Paragraph 13(2) of Schedule 1 of the VAT Act 1994). That judgment will be based on evidence in HMRC’s records concerning assets on hand etc. On receiving a deregistration questionnaire, if the IP still anticipates supplies being made in terms of continued trading or (more likely) asset realisation, then HMRC would expect the IP to inform them at that point. The VAT registration will then be kept open.

The Brief suggests that legal advice has merely clarified the position that has existed for some time, so this could mean that there are a host of historic cases of assets sold post-deregistration on a plus VAT basis. Does HMRC expect IPs to revisit these cases and take action to amend the position to that set out in the Brief?

Only if that proves necessary in order for a VAT registered purchaser of assets from an insolvent business to recover input tax. As explained in the answer to question 1 above, HMRC is neither proposing nor requesting a mass resurrection of historical cases. But reinstatement of a VAT registration may prove necessary on a case by case basis where a purchaser of assets encounters difficulty reclaiming input tax. Hopefully the number of such cases will be relatively small. The intention of Brief 13/14 is to try to reduce the number of such cases to zero going forward.

My huge thanks to Steve Taccagni, Insolvency Policy Adviser at HMRC, for answering my questions so comprehensively.


Leave a comment

New SIPs 3 – are you ready?

5313 Sydney

As the new SIPs 3 come into effect in less than two weeks’ time, I’m guessing that few of you will be interested in reading my “yes, but what exactly does that mean?!” observations below. If VAs/Trust Deeds are your thing, you will have got going on bringing practices into line with the new SIPs (and you really won’t want to read any alternative interpretations). But it’s not all gripes; I have actually tried to include some points that may be of use!

SIP3.1 (IVAs) and SIP3.2 (CVAs)

Assuming that your practices already comply with (old) SIP3 and statute, what do you need to know to bring them in line with the new SIPs? I’m afraid I don’t think it’s about easy fixes. The new SIPs are so different from the 2007 SIP3 that I would recommend trying to take a fresh and objective look at the way VAs are conducted in the round in order to apply the new SIP principles and requirements.

The revised SIPs put great emphasis on there being “procedures in place to ensure…”, so it is not simply a case of getting standard templates compliant. In my view, the key seems to be more about making sure that tasks and considerations are prompted and carried out, not just marked “N/A” (or perhaps even “done”) on a checklist completed 6 months after the event. However, the vast majority of the steps required are not rocket-science and are probably being carried out already, so if any major changes are required, they will probably involve regularising processes and evidencing the steps taken.

Having said that, some obvious easy fixes may include:

• Ensure that letters to shareholders and creditors giving notice of the meetings explain the stages and roles associated with a VA (i.e. initial advice, assisting in preparing the proposal, acting as nominee, and acting as supervisor) – per the SIPs’ first principle.

• Ensure that initial advice includes explaining “the rights of challenge to the VA and the potential consequences of those challenges”.

• If you’re confident that there are systems in place to keep alert to signs that a meeting with an individual debtor is merited, SIP3.1 allows you to lighten up on SIP3’s requirement to meet with every “trading individual” (although a meeting needs to be offered in every case).

• Check that standard Proposals templates (and procedures/documents used in drafting Proposals) include all the items listed. Although the new SIPs are not as fulsome as the old SIP3, there are some curly additions, such as “the background and financial history of the directors, where relevant”.

• Ensure that post-approval circulars make clear the “final form of the accepted VA” where a proposal is modified, which to me suggests more than simply listing the approved modifications.

• Ensure that supervisors’ reports disclose fully the VA costs and “any other sources of income of the insolvency practitioner or the practice in relation to the case” (remembering that the Ethics Code prohibits referral fees or commissions benefitting the IP/firm as opposed to the estate) and any increases in costs, if these have increased beyond previously-reported estimates. Whilst the old SIP3 already requires disclosure of increases in the supervisor’s fees, “costs” of course are wider in scope and could include solicitors, agents etc.

Other fixes may not be so easy…

Huh? No. 1

For CVAs, “the initial meeting with the directors should always be face to face”.

But what is the initial meeting; is it the first meeting? What if progression towards a solution is an iterative process? And who are the directors? Does this mean that all the directors need to be present, even if someone is out of the country? And why face to face? Is this so that you can skype but a non-visible telephone conference won’t do; where’s the sense in that?

Yes, I know I’m being picky. Trying to look at this sensibly, presumably IPs are expected to ensure that the directors discuss face-to-face the information to enable them to decide on whether to propose a CVA and what that might look like. I could see that this discussion might occur after a period of information-gathering, so it may not actually be the very first meeting with the director/s. In addition, inevitably there will be occasions when it is difficult to meet physically with all the directors, so this might require some judgment on IPs’ parts as to whether the non-attendance “face-to-face” of a particular director falls foul of the need to meet with “the directors”.

Huh? No. 2

When preparing for a VA, the IP should have procedures in place to ensure that the directors/debtor have had, or receive, appropriate advice. “This should be confirmed in writing, if the insolvency practitioner or their firm has not done so before.” (This is repeated later in SIP3.1 where an IP first gets involved at the nominee stage, i.e. where someone else has helped to prepare the IVA Proposal.)

But what is “this” that should be confirmed in writing? Is it the appropriate advice itself or is it the fact that appropriate advice has been given? I assume this means that, if someone else has been involved in getting the directors/debtor to the point of deciding on a VA before introducing them to the IP, the IP needs to be satisfied that they have been properly advised previously and confirm in writing the advice behind the decision – not merely “I understand that you have received appropriate advice from X and consequently have decided to propose a VA” – but I could be wrong…

Huh? No. 3

In assessing the VA as a solution, the SIPs require IPs to obtain a variety of information, including: “the measures taken by the directors (debtor) or others to avoid recurrence of the company’s (their) financial difficulties, if any”.

Does the “if any” refer to financial difficulties or measures taken? Would there be any occasion to propose a VA where there are no financial difficulties (even if any current difficulties to pay debts had arisen from historic, now settled, events)? Consequently, I would have thought the SIPs refer to learning of any measures taken to avoid recurrence, rather than any financial difficulties, but that does not seem to be the case, as the SIPs state later that Proposals should contain information on “any other attempts that have been made to solve their financial difficulties, if there are any such difficulties”.

Huh? No. 4

The SIPs require procedures to ensure that the proposer’s consent is sought to any modifications put forward by creditors. The SIPs state that, where a modification is adopted, in the absence of consent (from the proposer and, if appropriate, the creditors), the VA “cannot proceed”. The proposer’s consent must be recorded.

Why seek the proposer’s consent to any modification, including those that will be voted out by the majority, especially if they run contrary to the wishes of the majority? I guess that this is only fair to the creditors, but it could be confusing especially to debtors faced with a whole host of potentially conflicting and futile modifications. And what would happen if a minority creditor, say, wanted the supervisor’s fees to be reduced below that required by the majority, and the proposer consented to the reduction? Where does that leave things?

And why state that a CVA cannot proceed in the absence of the proposer’s consent? As far as I am aware, the directors’ consent to modifications is not a statutory requirement (but obviously in certain circumstances this may be essential for the successful implementation of the CVA). I also wonder if, technically, an administrator or liquidator needs to consent to modifications to their Proposals…

How should a director’s/debtor’s consent be “recorded”? Will a telephone conversation note, or even merely minutes signed by the Chairman, suffice? Where ever possible, I would recommend continuing with the now-commonplace procedure of getting the proposer to sign contemporaneously a copy of the adopted modifications, but I do wonder whether the new SIPs are suggesting that a less robust record may suffice.

SIP3.3 (Trust Deeds)

I am in no position to pass comment on the technicalities of this new SIP – I did voice some “huh?”s whilst reading it, but I will resist the urge to put my foot in it!

Overall, I am heartened to see the lightening-up on much of the prescription and consequent rigidity of SIP3A. Personally, I do think the RPBs could have gone further, however, as there still seems to me to be a fair amount of unnecessary statutory, SIP9 and Ethics Code references. There also seems to be some particularly fruitless statements: my personal favourite is “Where the decision is to grant a Trust Deed and seek its protection, the insolvency practitioner will take the necessary steps” – duh!


Leave a comment

A Janus View of Developments in Insolvency Regulation

IMGP4139

I thought I would take a look at where we’ve got to on a few of the current developments in insolvency regulation:

• The Deregulation Bill: who says limited IP licences are a good idea?
• SIP3.2 (CVA): a preview of the final SIP3 (IVA) or an ethical minefield?
• The JIC Newsletter: grasping the nettle of the commissions issue
• Insolvency Service update to the BIS Committee: promises, promises!

It’s by no means a complete list, but it’s a start!

The Deregulation Bill: when is a consultation not a consultation?

The Joint Committee of the Houses of Lords and Commons published its report on the draft Deregulation Bill on 19 December 2013, available here: http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/joint-select/draft-deregulation-bill/news/draft-deregulation-bill-report/.

Insolvency features relatively insignificantly in the wide-ranging draft Deregulation Bill, the so-called Henry VIII Power attracting far more attention, so in some respects it is quite surprising that insolvency got a mention in the Committee report at all. However, the background to this report included oral evidence sessions, one of which was attended by Andrew Tate representing R3’s Small Practices Group. A recording of the session can be accessed at: http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=14073&player=windowsmedia – insolvency pops up at c.50 minutes.

Andrew had a chance to express concerns about the draft Bill’s introduction of IP licences limited to personal or corporate insolvency processes. He raised the concern, which I understand is shared by many IPs, that IPs need knowledge of, and access to, all the tools in the insolvency kit, so that they can help anyone seeking a solution, be they a company director, a practice partner, or an individual, and some situations require a combination of personal, corporate and/or partnership insolvency solutions.

What seemed to attract the attention of the Committee most, however, was learning that there had been no public consultation on the question. It’s worth hearing the nuanced evidence session, rather than reading the dead-pan transcript. It fell to Nick Howard, who was not a formal witness but presumably was sitting in the wings, to explain that there had been an “informal consultation”, which had revealed general support, and I thought it was a little unfair that a Committee member seemed sceptical of this on the basis that they had not heard from anyone expressing support: after all, I don’t think that people tend to spend time shouting about draft Bills with which they agree.

Personally, I do not share the same objections to limited licences, or at least not to the same degree. I see the value of all IPs having knowledge of both personal and corporate insolvency, but even now not all fully-licensed IPs have had experience in all fields, so some already start their licensed life ill-equipped to deal with all insolvency situations. I believe that there are more than a few IPs who have chosen a specialist route that really does mean that practically they do not need the in-depth knowledge of all insolvency areas, and, given that they will not have kept up their knowledge of, and they will have little, if any, useful experience in, insolvency processes outside their specialist field, does it really do the profession or the public any favours for them to be indistinguishable from an IP who has worked hard to maintain strong all-round knowledge and experience? Surely it would be more just and transparent for such specialists to hold limited licences, wouldn’t it?

From my perspective as a former IPA regulation manager, I believe that there would also be less risk in limited licences. As things currently stand, an IP could have passed the JIEB Administration paper years’ ago (even when it was better known as the Receivership paper) and never have touched an Administration in his life, but (Ethics Code principle of professional competence aside) tomorrow he could be talking to a board of directors about an Administration, pre-pack, or CVA. Personally, I would prefer it if IPs who specialise were clearly identified as such. Then, if they encountered a situation that exceeded their abilities, which they would be less likely to encounter because everyone could see that they had a limited licence, at least they would be prohibited from giving it a go.

Clearly, with so many facets to this issue, it is a good thing that the Committee has recommended that the clause proposing limited licences be the subject of further consultation!

The other insolvency-related clauses in the draft Bill have sat silently, but presumably if limited licences stall for further consultation, the other provisions – such as fixing the Administration provisions that gave rise to the Minmar/Virtualpurple confusion and modifying the bankruptcy after-acquired property provision, which allegedly is behind the banks’ reluctance to allow bankrupts to operate a bank account – will gather dust for some time to come.

SIP3.2 (CVA): a preview of the final SIP3 (IVA)?

I found the November consultation on a draft SIP3.2 for CVAs interesting, as I suspect that this gives us a preview of what the final SIP3 for IVAs will look like: the JIC’s winter 2013 newsletter explained that the working group had reviewed the SIP3 (IVA) consultation responses to see whether there should be any changes made to the working draft of SIP3 (CVA). Consequently, it seems that there will be few changes to the consultation draft of SIP3 (IVA)… although that hasn’t stopped me from drawing from my own consultation response to the draft SIP3 (IVA) and repeating some of those points in my consultation response to the draft SIP3 (CVA). I was pleased to see, however, that few of my issues with the IVA draft had been repeated in the CVA draft – it does pay to respond to consultations!

I’ve lurked around the LinkedIn discussions on the draft SIP3.2 and been a bit dismayed at the apparent differences of opinion about the role of the advising IP/nominee. Personally, I believe that the principles set out in the Insolvency Code of Ethics and the draft SIP3.2 handle it correctly and fairly clearly. In particular, I believe that an IP’s aim – to seek to ensure that the proposed CVA is achievable and strikes a fair balance between the interests of the company and the creditors – as described in Paragraph 6 of the draft SIP3.2 – is appropriate (even though, as often it will not be the IP’s Proposal, this may not always be the outcome). In my mind, this does not mean that the IP is aiming for some kind of mid-point between those interests, as the insolvent company’s interests at that time necessarily will have particular regard for the creditors’ interests, and so I do not believe that the SIP supports any perception that the advising IP/nominee sides inappropriately with the directors/company. However, given that apparently some have the perception that this state exists, perhaps it would be worthwhile for the working group to see whether it can come up with some wording that makes the position absolutely clear, so that there is no risk that readers might misinterpret the careful responsibility expected of the advising IP/nominee.

I would urge you to respond to the consultation, which closes on 7 January 2014.

The JIC Newsletter: all bark and no bite?

Well, what do you think of the JIC’s winter 2013 newsletter? I have to say that, having been involved in reviewing the fairly inconsequential reads of previous years whilst I was at the IPA, I was pleasantly surprised that at least this newsletter seemed to have something meaningful to say. Personally, I wish it had gone further – as really all it seems to be doing is reminding us of what the Ethics Code already states – but I am well aware of the difficulties of getting something even mildly controversial approved by the JIC members, their respective RPBs, and the Insolvency Service: it is not a forum that lends itself well to the task of enacting ground-breaking initiatives. And anyway, if there were something more than the Ethics Code or SIPs that needed to be said, a newsletter is not the place for it.

Nevertheless, I would still recommend a read: http://www.ion.icaew.com/insolvencyblog/post/Joint-Insolvency-Committee-winter-2013-newsletter (I’d love to be able to direct people to my former employer’s website, but unfortunately theirs requires member login).

Bill Burch quickly off the mark posted his thoughts on the Commissions article: http://complianceoncall.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/dark-portents-from-jic-for-commissions.html, which pretty-much says it all. Personally, I hope that this signifies a “right, let’s get on and tackle this issue!” attitude of revived enthusiasm by the regulators, but similarly I fear that some offenders may just seem too heavy-weight to wrestle, at least publicly, although that does not mean that behaviours cannot be changed by stealth. Many would shout that this is unfair, but it has to be better than nothing, hasn’t it?

My main concern, however, is how do the regulators go about spotting this stuff? Unless a payment is made from an insolvent estate, it is unlikely to reach the eyes of the monitor on a routine visit. It’s all well and good asking an IP where he gets his work from, if/how he pays introducers, and reviewing agreements, but if someone were intent on covering their tracks..? I know for a fact that at least one of the examples described in the JIC newsletter was revealed via a complaint, so that would be my personal message: if you observe anyone playing fast and loose with the Ethics Code, please take it to the regulators, and if you don’t want to do that personally, then get in touch with R3 and they might help do it for you. If you don’t, then how really can you cry that the regulators aren’t doing enough to police your competitors?

However, the theoretic ease with which inappropriate commissions could be disguised and the multitude of relatively unregulated hangers-on to the insolvency profession, preying on the desire of some to get ahead and the fear of others of losing out to the competition, do make me wonder if this issue can ever be tackled successfully. But the JIC newsletter at least appears to more clearly define the battle-lines.

Insolvency Service Update to the BIS Committee: all good things come to those who wait

Jo Swinson’s response to the House of Commons’ Select Committee is available at: http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/business-innovation-and-skills/20131030%20Letter%20from%20Jo%20Swinson%20-%20Insolvency%20Service%20update.pdf. It was issued on 30 October so by now many items have already moved on, but I wanted to use it as an opportunity to highlight some ongoing and future developments to look out for.

Regarding “continuation of supply”, which was included in the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 but which requires secondary legislation to bring it into effect, Ms Swinson stated: “We intend to consult later this year on how the secondary legislation should be framed”. I had assumed simply that the Insolvency Service’s timeline had slipped a bit – understandably so, as there has been plenty going on – but I became concerned when I read the interview with Nick Howard in R3’s winter 2013 Recovery magazine. He stated: “We are in the process of consulting on exactly how that [the supply of IT] works because the power in the Act is fairly broad and we want to ensure we achieve the desired effect”. Have I missed something, or perhaps there’s another “informal consultation” going on?

I’m guessing the Service’s timeline has slipped a bit in relation to considering Professor Kempson’s report on fees, however, as Ms Swinson had planned “to announce the way forward before the end of the year” in relation to “a number of possible options for addressing this fundamental issue [that “the market does not work sufficiently where unsecured creditors are left to ‘control’ IP fees”], by both legislative and non-legislative means. Still, I imagine this isn’t far away, albeit that Ms Swinson is now on maternity leave.

This might be old news to those with their ears to the ERA ground, but it was news to me that the Insolvency Service will be implementing the Government’s Digital by Default strategy in the RPO “with a digital approach to redundancy claims anticipated to be launched in the autumn of 2014”. My experience as an ERA administrator may date back to the 1990s when people were comforted more by the feel of paper in their hands, but I do wonder how well the news will go down with just-laid-off staff that they need to go away and lodge their claims online. A sign of the times, I guess…

Finally, don’t mention the Draft Insolvency Rules!

No summary of regulatory goings-on would be complete without referring to the draft Insolvency Rules, on which the consultation closes on 24 January 2014. And no, I’ve still not started to look at them properly; it feels a bit futile even to think about starting now. But then, if we don’t pipe up on them now, we won’t be able to complain about the result, even if that may be yet years’ away…


Leave a comment

SIP16: A Clean Slate

IMGP6165lowres

Will this new SIP16 quench the fires burning for pre-packagers? Will it improve the transparency of, and confidence in, pre-packs, which was the stated aim three Secretaries of State ago when this SIP16 revision process began? Who knows, but woe betide any IP who turns out a non-compliant SIP16 disclosure after 1 November!

So what changes do firms need to make over the next four weeks?

Diaries

The new SIP16 timescale is half that of Dear IP 42: the explanation should be provided with the first notification to creditors and in any event within seven calendar days of the transaction (paragraph 11).

The “Information Disclosure Requirements”

Now that there are 25 disclosure points (as compared with the previous 17), I think there is no practical way of ensuring compliance unless templates stick rigidly to the list in the SIP; personally, I think that’s a shame, but there it is. To avoid any possible confusion, perhaps it is best to create a standalone document, which can form an appendix/attachment/enclosure to the letter to creditors and to the administrator’s proposals, as SIP16 now requires that the statement is provided in proposals (although I think most IPs are doing this already).

You may find that some disclosure points that look familiar to those in the current SIP have acquired subtle differences – e.g. not only does “any connection between the purchaser and the directors, shareholders or secured creditors of the company” need to be disclosed under the new SIP, but “or their associates” has been added. Therefore, rather than trying to edit SIP16 lists appearing in existing templates, perhaps it’s as well to tear them up and start afresh. Also, the new SIP16 groups points under sub-headings, which creates a better structure for the disclosure than the previous SIP, so I think it would help coherence (and help anyone checking off compliance) to follow the SIP’s order.

The old SIP’s paragraph 8, which was so loved by the regulators as encapsulating what the SIP16 disclosure was all about, appears almost word-for-word as a key principle in this new SIP. Paragraph 4 states: “Creditors should be provided with a detailed explanation and justification of why a pre-packaged sale was undertaken, to demonstrate that the administrator has acted with due regard for their interests”. Although the Information Disclosure Requirements seem all-encompassing, could someone argue that ticking all those boxes does not meet the paragraph 4 requirement but that, in some cases, a bit more fleshing-out is required? Now that they have been beefed up, I don’t think there’s much risk that the Insolvency Service/RPBs would expect more than those Information Disclosure points, but it does suggest that a degree of sense-checking would be valuable: perhaps someone in the IP’s firm (but not involved in the case) could cold-read draft SIP16 disclosures and see whether they hang together well or whether they leave the reader with questions. I know that it’s a practice that some IP firms already conduct in the interests of transparency.

Other Required Disclosures

I think it would be easy to focus exclusively on the “Information Disclosure Requirements”, but that would be a mistake as there are other items nestled within the SIP that need to be taken care of.

• Paragraph 3 states: “An insolvency practitioner should differentiate clearly the roles that are associated with an administration that involves a pre-packaged sale (that is, the provision of advice to the company before any formal appointment and the functions and responsibilities of the administrator). The roles are to be explained to the directors and the creditors.” Although a similar paragraph appeared in the old SIP with regard to communicating with directors, it might be well to double-check that this, as well as the additional points in paragraph 5 of the SIP, are covered off in the engagement letter to directors. And note that, now, the distinction between the roles of the IP also needs to be explained to the creditors.

• Paragraph 9 introduces a new requirement. It states that the pre-pack explanation should include “a statement explaining the statutory purpose pursued and confirming that the sale price achieved was the best reasonably obtainable in all the circumstances”.

As in the old SIP16, if the disclosure points are not provided, the administrator should explain why. There are a couple of other required explanations for not providing things that are new:

• If the seven day timescale is not met for the SIP16 disclosure, the administrator should “provide a reasonable explanation for the delay” (paragraph 11). If this timescale cannot be met, the SIP requires the administrator to provide a reasonable explanation of the delay. Although the SIP does not state it, presumably you would provide this explanation within your SIP16 disclosure that you would send as swiftly as possible, albeit late.

• If the administrator has been unable to meet the requirement to seek the requisite approval of his proposals as soon as reasonably practicable after appointment, he should explain the reasons for the delay (paragraph 12), again presumably within the proposals whenever they are issued.

Internal Documents

The new SIP pretty-much repeats the old SIP’s requirements for some internal documents:

• Under the heading, Preparatory Work, paragraph 7 states: “An administrator should keep a detailed record of the reasoning behind the decision to undertake a pre-packaged sale” (this was in the old SIP’s introductory paragraphs).

• Under the heading, After Appointment, paragraph 8 states: “When considering the manner of disposal of the business or assets as administrator, an insolvency practitioner should be able to demonstrate that the duties of an administrator under the legislation have been considered”. Okay, it doesn’t mention explicitly internal documents, but it seems to me that contemporaneous file notes – justifying the manner of disposal as in the interests of creditors as a whole or, if the administrator does not believe that either of the first two administration objectives are achievable, that it does not unnecessarily harm the interests of the creditors as a whole (i.e. Paragraphs 3(2) and 3(4) of Schedule B1 of the Insolvency Act 1986) – should help demonstrate such consideration.

The Future

So is there anything in the old SIP that has been left out of the new SIP? No, nothing of any real consequence, although it did strike me how far we’ve come – that it was felt that the 2008 SIP16 needed to explain, with case precedent references, that administrators have the power to sell assets without the prior approval of the creditors or court. Have we moved on sufficiently from those days, do you think?

When you think of it, it wasn’t too long ago when we were faced with draft regulations requiring three days’ notice to creditors of any pre-pack; they were set to come into force on 1 October 2011. And I don’t think the other ideas, for example that all administrations involving pre-packs should exit via liquidation with a different IP/OR appointed liquidator, have completely disappeared.

However, I think that what this new SIP does is provide us with a clean slate. To some extent, we can file away the Insolvency Service’s statistics of non-compliance with the old SIP16 along with our copies of Dear IP 42 and we can concentrate on getting it right this time. However frustrated and irritated we might feel at having to meet these rigid disclosure requirements, I hope that IPs will strive hard to meet them. It may not silence the critics – let’s face it, it won’t – but it will give them one less stick with which to beat up the profession.