Insolvency Oracle

Developments in UK insolvency by Michelle Butler


1 Comment

Emerging Interpretations of the New Rules – Part 1: the biggies

Along with Dear IP 76, the Insolvency Service’s Rules blog has been a fascinating read. If you don’t fancy trawling through all 148 comments, here are my personal favourites. There are too many to cover in one go, so I’ll start here with a handful of the more contentious:

  • How do the New Rules affect existing VAs?
  • What is the deadline for forcing a S100 physical meeting?
  • What happens if a Centrebind is longer than 14 days?
  • How should you handle decisions sought from preferential creditors alone?
  • How should creditors comply with the Rules when submitting notices and forms?

 

I’ll also take this opportunity to reflect on how these emerging interpretations and the Amendment Rules have impacted on my previous blog posts. I have tried to update old blog posts as time has moved on, but I cannot promise that old blog posts – or indeed this one – will remain current. Things are moving fast.

Dear IPs can be found at: https://goo.gl/wn8Vog (although no. 76 has yet to appear)

The Insolvency Service’s Rules blog is at: https://theinsolvencyrules2016.wordpress.com/

 

Can we rely on the Insolvency Service’s answers?

Nick Howard’s introduction to Dear IP 76 states candidly “While it is only a Court that can give a binding interpretation of the law, the enclosed article sets out the policy intentions and how we believe the Rules support those”. That’s understandable. Much as we thirst for a cut-and-dried answer, we cannot have it. Just like the 1986 Rules, it will take decades to establish robust interpretations and even then there will always be the Minmar-like decision that takes us by surprise.

  • What about the Rules blog?

To be fair, the Service provided it with the purpose “to offer users the chance to share their thoughts and experiences as they prepare for commencement” of the Rules. It was never meant to be an inquisition of the Insolvency Service, but it was inevitable that it would turn out that way and I am very grateful that the Service has grasped the nettle and been prepared to post their views publicly for the benefit of us all.

  • So what comfort can we draw from the answers?

At the very least, the Service’s explanations are extremely valuable in understanding how they meant the Rules to work and in giving us all a starting point. I wonder if it could be seen a bit like the new mantra, “comply or explain”: if we don’t trust an answer, we need to be certain that our reasons for departing from it are well-founded. And at the very best, the Service has provided explanations that make us say: “right, yes I can see that. Thanks, I’ll work on that basis”.

 

What are the New Rules’ Impacts on Existing VAs?

The difficulty for the Insolvency Service – and indeed for all of us – is that of course each VA is dependent on its own Proposals and Standard Terms & Conditions (“STC”), so expressing any opinion on the effect of the New Rules on VAs in general is going to be dangerous.

  • The difference between IVA Protocol and R3 STCs

The majority of IVAs use either the IVA Protocol or R3’s STC, so you might think it would be relatively straightforward at least to establish some ground rules for these two documents and then leave each IP to determine whether the Proposal itself has any overriding effect. Dear IP seems to have made a stab at this in relation to the IVA Protocol at least. However, I think it is important to bear in mind that Dear IP makes no mention of R3’s STCs and from what I can see there is a chasm of difference in how the two STCs have incorporated the 1986 Rules.

True, both STCs define the “Rules” as the Insolvency Rules 1986 as amended and the Service makes the case for equating this to the 2016 Rules. I have heard argument that the Service’s reliance on S17 of the Interpretation Act 1978 does not stack up: if a contract – which is what we’re talking about here – refers to Rx.xx of the Insolvency Act 1986 (as amended), does it not remain as such notwithstanding that the 1986 Rules have been revoked?

This takes me to the chasm between the two sets of STC: for example, the IVA Protocol STC state that “The Supervisor may… summon and conduct meetings of creditors… in accordance with the Act and the Rules” (19(1)), whereas the R3 STC describe in detail how to convene meetings and conduct postal resolutions with no reference to the Act or Rules. Therefore, personally I am struggling to see how the 2016 Rules affect existing VAs’ methods of seeking creditors’ agreements where those VAs are based on the R3 STC. However, I also question whether the R3 STC restrict meetings to physical ones – when I read the STC cold, I’m not persuaded that they don’t also work for virtual meetings (but then again, don’t most meetings happen only on paper anyway?) – so it seems to me that the R3 STC may allow a variety of routes but, thankfully, without all the baggage that the 2016 Rules carry with them, which may load down Protocol IVAs in view of their vague reference to “in accordance with the Act and the Rules”.

  • Does Dear IP make the IVA Protocol position clear?

It’s Dear IP’s treatment of the Protocol STC’s wording, “The Supervisor may… summon and conduct meetings of creditors… in accordance with the Act and the Rules”, that puzzles me. On the one hand, Dear IP acknowledges that the Act and Rules “remain silent on how decisions are taken once in (sic.) a voluntary arrangement is in place”… so they seem to be saying that the Act and Rules are irrelevant to a supervisor looking to call a meeting. But then Dear IP says: “we do not believe [supervisors] should feel restricted to only using a physical meeting. We expect supervisors to take advantage of the new and varied decision making procedures that are available under the Act as amended and the 2016 Rules”.

But how possibly can the phrase, “the supervisor may summon and conduct meetings of creditors”, morph into for example: “the supervisor may seek a decision by means of a correspondence vote”? This is too much of a stretch, isn’t it? Rather than be meant as a comment on the application of the 2016 Rules to existing VAs, perhaps the Service is simply stating that it would like IPs to incorporate the various processes in future VA Proposals and STC, don’t you think?

Because the Act and Rules in themselves do not empower supervisors to seek decisions, does this mean that the Protocol STC’s words “in accordance with the Act and the Rules” are redundant? Or are these words supposed to mean that the supervisor should “apply the provisions of the Act and Rules in so far as they relate to bankruptcy with necessary modifications”, as paragraph 4(3) of the Protocol STC states? Ok, if the latter is the case, then what is the effect of S379ZA(2), i.e. that a trustee cannot summon a physical meeting unless sufficient creditors request one? This would seem to take us far from the Dear IP position where supervisors should not “feel restricted to only using a physical meeting”.

For these reasons, I think the Dear IP is horribly muddled. Perhaps the IVA Standing Committee might like to clarify the position in relation to their STC..?

 

What is the deadline for forcing a physical meeting in a S100 scenario?

This is another area that seems to have got horribly muddled. It seems to me that much of the confusion over this arises because of the conflating of two potential creditor responses: (i) a creditor can object to a decision sought by deemed consent; or (ii) a creditor can request a physical meeting. It is true that, when a S100 decision on the liquidator is sought by deemed consent, the consequence of either response is the same: a physical meeting is summoned. However, the Rules around each response are different.

  • The deadline for objections

R15.7(2)(a) states that the notice seeking deemed consent must contain “a statement that in order to object to the proposed decision a creditor must have delivered a notice, stating that the creditor so objects, to the convener not later than the decision date”. “Not later than the decision date” must surely mean that objections delivered on the decision date are valid (note: although this rule only specifies what must appear in a notice, S246ZF(4) makes clear that “the procedure set out in the notice” is binding).

  • The deadline for physical meeting requests

For a S100 decision, R6.14(6)(a) states that “a request [for a physical meeting] may be made at any time between the delivery of the notice… and the decision date”. I have heard argument that “between” excludes the days at each end, which would mean that the deadline for requests would be the end of the day before the decision date. At first, I was persuaded by this interpretation, given that, if I were to count how many people in a queue were between me and the ticket office, I would not include myself in the number… but then someone asked me to pick a number between 1 and 10..!

This interpretation of “between” also makes little sense when considering R15.4(b), which states that an electronic voting system must be “capable of enabling a creditor to vote at any time between the notice being delivered and the decision date”… so the IP isn’t interested in votes cast on the decision date then..?

  • The Insolvency Service’s policy intentions

How does Dear IP pull these threads together? It states: “The policy intention (in all cases) is that a request for a physical meeting must arrive before the decision date. The policy intention with regard to electronic voting is that creditors may cast their votes up until the decision closes (i.e. 23:59 on the decision date). We believe that the 2016 Rules are capable of supporting both these policy intentions.”

The Insolvency Service appears blinkered in their statement that the 2016 Rules support the policy intention, because they simply focus on requests for a physical meeting. Irrespective of how “between” is interpreted, the fact is that a deemed consent can be objected to up to 23.59 on the decision date and such an objection would force a physical meeting. Therefore, a members’-appointed liquidator will still be left in the position of not knowing whether there will be a last-minute objection that will force an unexpected c.week-long Centrebind.

 

What happens if a Centrebind is longer than 14 days?

I feel I should apologise for wasting people’s time in explaining (via this blog (https://goo.gl/hikYKr), R3 presentations and our webinars) the risks that a Centrebind could last longer than 14 days if material transactions need to be reported or a physical meeting needs to be convened.

  • The Insolvency Service’s simple answer

The Insolvency Service gave the simple answer on their blog that “it is sufficient that the original decision date was within the required timescale”. In other words, provided that the convener fixed the decision date for the S100 deemed consent process or the virtual meeting not later than 14 days after the winding-up resolution, it is of no consequence that this decision date falls away because the date of a consequent physical meeting falls outside this timescale.

I find the Insolvency Service’s answer startling. Personally, I would expect the Rules to make explicit that it is the original S100 decision date that matters, in the same way as Para 51(2) uses the expression “initial decision date” when setting down the 10-week deadline for Administrators to seek approval of their proposals (i.e. Para 51(3) explicitly provides that Administrators do not get into a pickle if creditors reject a decision by deemed consent and then the Administrator convenes another decision process with this second decision date falling outside the 10 weeks).

  • Can this principle apply also to VA Proposal decision dates?

What about the other instance when an important decision date deadline must be met: the approval of an IVA Proposal? R8.22(7) states that this decision date must be not more than 28 days from the date on which the nominee received the Proposal (or when the nominee’s report was considered by the court). Given that 14 days’ notice is required, it would be very possible for a physical meeting decision date to be outside this timescale. Would it matter as long as the original decision date was inside it? The Rules do not address this point, but neither do they address the unintended Centrebind position.

Much as my heart’s cockles are warmed by the Insolvency Service’s answer, personally I would be nervous in relying on it.

 

How do you deal with preferential creditors’ decisions?

The Insolvency Service’s answers on this topic are eminently sensible and I am more than happy to live with them… but it’s just that I cannot help but continue to ask myself: “yes, but where does it say that?”

The questions surround the New Rules’ defined process for seeking prefs’ approval of matters such as the Administrators’ fees. Exactly how do you conduct a decision procedure of prefs alone?

Firstly, what do you do with pref creditors who have been paid in full? R18.18(4) states that pref creditors must make a decision on fees, if the Administrator “has made or intends to make a distribution” to prefs (in a Para 52(1)(b) case). This would seem to include prefs who have been paid in full, but R15.11 excludes them from receiving notice of the decision procedure.

But, actually, what do we mean when we refer to pref creditors being paid in full? Usually we mean that the pref element of their claim has been paid in full, but often they will still have a non-pref unsecured claim. How do you calculate a pref creditor’s value for voting purposes?

R15.31(1)(a) states that, in an administration, votes are calculated “according to the amount of each creditor’s claim as at the date on which the company entered administration, less any payments that have been made to the creditor after that date in respect of the claim”.

  • Another simple answer from the Insolvency Service

The Insolvency Service’s answer to these questions was: “Our interpretation is that [R15.31(1)(a)] would lead an administrator to consider the value of outstanding preferential claims at the date that the vote takes place. This would only include the preferential element of claims, and if these had been paid in full then the administrator would not be expected to seek a decision from those creditors.”

Personally, I don’t see that R15.31(1)(a) gets us anywhere: it doesn’t state that a creditor’s claim is only its preferential element when a decision procedure is only open to pref creditors and it doesn’t state that you do not need to seek a decision from pref creditors who have been paid their pref elements in full… but in all other respects I like the Service’s answers!

 

Do creditors need to get forms absolutely correct?

There is no denying that the 2016 Rules have placed a heavier burden on us all to get the details correct. Many things that we were used to doing in simple text form are now described as “notices” and every statutory notice must include “standard contents”, which often require the addition of new detail such as insolvents’ company registered numbers or residential addresses.

  • The validity of old proofs of debt

In many cases, creditors are not spared these requirements. For example, the prescriptive detail of proofs of debt – R14.4 – is quite different from the old requirements. If you are adjudicating on pre-April proofs, can you accept them for dividend purposes? Indeed, can you rely on a Notice of Intended Dividend process commenced before 6 April?

As regards the need for creditors to submit new proofs to meet the New Rules’ requirements, the Insolvency Service answered: “Section 16 of the Interpretation Act 1978 may be relied upon here, and proofs which have already been submitted do not become invalidated.”

Incidentally, S16 of the Interpretation Act 1978 states that a “repeal does not, unless the contrary intention appears… affect the previous operation of the enactment repealed or anything duly done or suffered under that enactment [or] affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under that enactment”, so does this help as regards NoIDs? Are IPs safe to rely on old NoIDs as protecting them from late creditors? This wasn’t the question put to the Service, but it would seem to me the only way the New Rules could possibly work.

However, I’m not quite sure how S16 helps IPs decide now whether to admit an old proof for dividend purposes, when surely they must measure proofs against the New Rules, mustn’t they? But, realistically, what could an old proof possibly be lacking that might struggle to get it admitted under the New Rules?

  • Providing the detail required for new proofs

I asked the Service about the requirement for a proof to be authenticated. R1.5(3) states that “if a document is authenticated by the signature of an individual on behalf of… a body corporate of which the individual is the sole member, the document must also state that fact”. If a creditor failed to state this on a proof, would it render the proof invalid? And, if so, does this obligate office holders to check this point?

Alternatively, does R1.9(1)(b) help us all out? This rule states that “where a rule sets out the required contents of a document, the document may depart from the required contents if… the departure (whether or not intentional) is immaterial”.

The Insolvency Service’s answer was: “The extent to which an office-holder could rely on rule 1.9(1)(b) here would be a matter for them to decide, possibly in liaison with their regulatory body.” I can understand why the Service was not tempted to put their neck on the block on this question, but it does demonstrate to me the nonsensical nature of the New Rules: they set out prescriptive detail of what must be provided… then add a rule that states it’s okay if a departure is “immaterial”. Why put prescriptive immaterial requirements in the Rules in the first place?!

  • Do creditors need to meet the notice requirements?

I felt a similar irritation when I read Dear IP’s article, “Do creditors’ notices have to comply with standard content”, for example when creditors object to a decision sought by deemed consent. The Service seems to be implying that the answer is no: “if it is clear what the creditor is seeking in their notice, it should be accepted”. Again, this leaves me wondering: if a creditor is free to run a red light, why put the lights up in the first place?

Having said that, R1.9(1)(b) might be a useful one to remember the next time the RPB monitors call… although we might expect some debating over what is “immaterial”.

  • The detail (not) required for proxy forms

I think it is also worth mentioning here the observation made on the Service’s blog at the lack of prescription when it comes to proxy forms. The Service explained that “the requirement to authenticate [a proxy form] was removed as a deregulatory measure, because authentication does not confer legitimacy. As long as the office-holder is satisfied that the proxy comes from the creditor then the requirements for submission are met.” So a creditor must sign a hard copy proof but need not sign a proxy form. Well, fancy that!

 

In my next post, I’ll set out some other nuggets gleaned from the Insolvency Service’s blog.

Advertisements


Leave a comment

Navigating Obstacles: S100s for Work-Winners

I suspect that many of you (like me) have heard plenty of theory on the New Rules’ decision-making changes. Maybe reading it from the practical perspective of the work-winner will give it a freshness.

Some non London-centric IPs who missed out on my recent presentation for R3 expressed disappointment, so I thought a blog post was warranted. Here I have concentrated only on the S100 process.

 

S100 CVLs: Deemed Consent or Virtual Meeting?

Before we start thinking about what we might discuss with directors, I think it’s worth weighing up the pros and cons of the two possible routes in to a CVL appointment… well, apart from a physical meeting, of course, but a physical meeting might be required whichever initial decision process we start with.

  • Material Transactions

The rules don’t define a material transaction, but they do say that (R6.17):

“where the statement of affairs sent to creditors… does not, or will not, state the company’s affairs at the creditors’ decision date, the directors must cause a report… to be made to the creditors… on any material transactions relating to the company occurring between the date of the making of the statement and the decision date”.

That sounds to me like it’s any transaction that changes the SoA, but the InsS people I’ve spoken to don’t see this as wrapping in, say, changes in asset class where book debts are converted into cash at bank or where a forgotten van pops up. They say they intended the rule to ensure that creditors learn of events that might impact on the independence of the proposed liquidator, i.e. things that happened with his involvement or since his appointment in Centrebind cases.

Personally, I found this interpretation most surprising, as it’s really not what the rules say – and I’d love to get this down in writing from the InsS, as I think it’ll make a huge difference to the frequency of material transactions.  (UPDATE 02/05/2017: Dear IP 76 simply states that a New Rules’ material transaction “is the same as 1986 rules 4.53B-CVL(1) and should be interpreted as such”… so we’re on our own on this one.)

So why should it matter?

Well, it won’t matter if you’re having a meeting, because you’d just report the material transaction to the meeting – it’s in our rules now, but it is never done (well I’ve never seen it done) because the SoA is usually signed off minutes before the meetings.

But it will matter if you’re working with the Deemed Consent process.

In this case, you must send out the report to creditors and if the report is delivered within 3 business days of the Decision Date, then the decision date moves to the end of 3 business days from delivery of the report.

This could leave you either in an unexpected Centrebind or needing to adjourn the members’ meeting.

  • Fees Decisions – who knows?!

I have put question marks on the table above, as the rules are very unclear when it comes to proposing fees decisions around the S100 time. That’s so helpful, isn’t it? It’s not as if fees is something we need to get absolutely spot-on, is it..?!

The only thing we do know for certain is that Deemed Consent cannot be used for “a decision about the remuneration of any person” (S246ZF(2)). The rest is unclear.

Can you propose a fees decision via a correspondence vote to run concurrently with the S100 Deemed Consent process? I struggle with this, as I cannot see who has authority under the rules to “convene” such a Decision Procedure. The IP isn’t in office (and if he is the members’ liquidator, his limited powers do not extend to seeking fee approval) and the director only has the power to convene a decision by Deemed Consent or by virtual meeting.

Can fees decisions be considered at a virtual meeting? There is nothing in the rules that expressly addresses this, but at least the director does have the power to convene the virtual meeting. Is it not arguable that tagging on (pre and post) fees decisions corresponds to what we do with S98s now (especially as the New Rules expressly provide for the “proposed liquidator” to circulate fees information – R18.16(10))?

I have received conflicting opinions on the routes available from reliable sources. As the consequences of getting this wrong are so serious, I’m very reluctant to pass further comment and I do hope that the powers-that-be will put us all out of misery and tell us categorically – and before 6 April! – how/whether fees decisions can be made at the same time as the S100 decision, as R15.11(1) seems to suggest is possible… somehow.

  • Timing

The deadline for the Deemed Consent process is 1 minute to midnight. The disadvantage here is that you won’t be certain on the decision until the next morning. I get the sense that most IPs are planning to hold their members’ meeting on the day of the Deemed Consent process, but this will still leave us with an inescapable Centrebind – it may be for only a few hours, but it’s worth thinking about it for insurance purposes at least.

On the other hand, virtual meetings can be held at anytime – the old between-10-and-4 rule has not been repeated in the New Rules. However, the convener still needs to “have regard to the convenience of those invited to participate when fixing the venue for a decision procedure” (R15.10), so the virtual meeting’s timing and “platform” (which has been added to the definition of “venue”) is still a factor to consider.

  • Excluded Persons

The rules describe an excluded person as (R15.36):

“someone who has taken all steps necessary [to attend the meeting virtually or remotely, but the arrangements] do not enable that person to attend the whole or part of that meeting.”

In other words, the technology or signal for the virtual meeting has failed.

If the chair becomes aware of an excluded person, he can continue the meeting, suspend it for up to an hour, or adjourn it. If the chair decides to continue the meeting, resolutions can be taken and these will be valid but they’re subject to complaints from the excluded person or from any other attendee who claims they were prejudiced by the exclusion.

The timescale for complaints is short – before 4pm on the next business day from the meeting or from receipt of an “indication” of what occurred at the meeting – but the consequences can be far-reaching. The chair could review the voting and conclude that the excluded person’s vote overturns resolutions that had been thought passed.

Practically, where would this leave a liquidator who thought they were free to publicise their appointment and perhaps also to complete asset sales? I am not certain that these actions would be covered by the S232 defects-deemed-valid provision.

Clearly it is vital that office holders know where they stand immediately after a meeting, but how would they know whether there were any excluded persons? They may know if someone drops out of contact mid-stream, but what if someone could not get online in the first place? Obviously, this is a risk if the notice of the virtual meeting includes all the information necessary to attend… but is this what the Rules require?

R15.5 states that the notice to creditors must provide:

“any necessary information as to how to access the virtual meeting including any telephone number, access code or password required”

A couple of InsS people have told me that they believe that simply giving out a contact number so that creditors can ask for the login details before the meeting would satisfy this Rule – it is “necessary information”, after all. Clearly, this would be a great help in identifying excluded persons as well as going some way to “safeguard[ing] against participation by persons who are not properly entitled to participate” (SIP6) and helping to plan for sufficient access to a virtual meeting. Hopefully the InsS will confirm this in writing when they respond to a question about this on their blog.  (UPDATE 02/05/2017: Dear IP 76 describes the Insolvency Service’s view as explained here.)

 

S100 CVLs: What Directors Need to Know

Please bear in mind that it has been a loooong time since I worked on the frontline. I do not feel worthy of explaining to IPs what they should discuss with directors pre-appointment. However, with the New Rules – and new SIP6 – in mind, here are my suggestions:

  • S100/SoA fees

With the lack of clarity in the Rules, you’ll probably want to get your fees paid upfront. But what happens if you have to convene a physical meeting? Who is going to pay for that? It might be an idea to factor this in to your engagement letter: make sure that it’s clear what the fixed fee covers and what effect the cost of an additional physical meeting might make.

  • Quick information

You’ll want to line the director up to providing information very quickly, given the short timeframes for compiling the SoA and the SIP6 report (see below).

  • Post-SoA material transactions

It might be helpful to make the directors aware of the consequences of any material transactions occurring after the SoA is produced. The risk of a postponement in the Decision Date might help them to focus on giving you the whole story and avoid doing anything silly in the hiatus period.

  • Postponed decisions

Material transactions or the need for a physical meeting will delay the S100 decision. If these events happen early enough, there might be a chance to adjourn the members’ meeting. But of course, if this happens, then the directors will be in control of the company for longer. What effect will this have on the CVL strategy?

You might also want to warn the director that they may need to attend a physical meeting. And will you be around for the physical meeting? Fortunately, the new rules have been relaxed a bit so that the members’ liquidator need not attend the physical meeting, he can appoint someone else in his stead (another IP or an experienced staff member), but if a physical meeting has been requested, then you might want to make sure you’re there.

  • SIP6 additions to engagement letters

The new SIP6 states that the assisting IP should “take reasonable steps to ensure that the convener is made fully aware of their duties and responsibilities”, so you may need to beef up your engagement letter to set out the director’s duties to take appropriate action as regards objections, requests for a physical meeting, material transactions and excluded persons, all of which are the convener’s/chair’s responsibilities; and to provide the SoA/SIP6 required information swiftly.

SIP6 also requires “reasonable steps to ensure that… the instructions to the IP to assist are adequately recorded”. I’m not sure what the RPBs are getting at here, other than expecting a signed engagement letter. Do they want you to have set out whether your instructions are to proceed with the Deemed Consent or the virtual meeting route? And/or should you specify that you’ll be assisting with assessing objections and requests for physical meetings?

Connected with this is SIP6’s requirement to “take reasonable steps to ensure that the convener and/or chair is informed that it may be appropriate for them to obtain independent assistance in determining the authenticity of a prospective participant’s authority or entitlement to participate and the amount for which they are permitted to do so in the event these are called into question”. This isn’t surprising given that something similar is in SIP8 regarding the conflict risk when counting proxies, but it may be a good idea to put it in your engagement letter if it isn’t already.

  • Excluded persons

Given the risk of excluded persons changing the outcome of meetings, you might want to be careful about what you indicate to directors that you plan to do on the day of, and the day after, the meeting.

 

S100 CVLs: The Unintended Centrebind

So what does the new S100 process look like? What needs to happen when?

Here is a timeline for a no-complication Deemed Consent, demonstrating the shortest notice possible:

A virtual meeting timeline would work the same, but it would just mean that you’d be able to schedule the meeting on Business Day 7 for a sensible time instead of a minute to midnight.

In particular, note the time needed to send the SoA and SIP6 report in order to accommodate delivery in time.  (UPDATE 23/03/17: it has been pointed out to me that SIP6 only requires the report to be “made available”, so some are interpreting this to mean that it does not have to be delivered to creditors (although the SoA still does need to be).)

But what if creditors object to the Deemed Consent at the last minute (i.e. after the members’ meeting had been held on business day 7)?

(UPDATE 23/03/17: it has been pointed out to me that requests for a physical meeting must be received “between the delivery of the notice and the decision date” (R6.14(6)) and thus it has been suggested that a physical meeting request received on the decision date will be too late. (UPDATE2 02/05/2017: the Insolvency Service’s view, as set out in Dear IP 76, is explored further in my post, https://goo.gl/ygnWjg.)  The deadline for deemed consent objections, however, is “not later than the decision date” (R15.7(2)), so I believe the timelines above and below are still relevant.)

You could fit the physical meeting within the statutory 14 calendar day timescale, provided that you can get the director to move quickly to convene it, but it would leave you managing an unintended Centrebind.

The picture looks grimmer if a material transaction occurs:

 

As you can see, there isn’t enough time to deal with a material transaction and a physical meeting.  (UPDATE 02/05/2017: the Insolvency Service has expressed the view on its blog that “it is sufficient that the original decision date was within the required timescale”.)

Virtual meetings avoid this issue, as the report on the material transaction would occur at the virtual meeting. It’s not the whole answer to avoiding a Centrebind, as creditors could still request a physical meeting, but at least it could be held within the 14 days.

 

There’s More

As I mentioned at the start, I’ve limited this blog post to S100 decisions only – it’s long enough already.

If you want to listen to my whole presentation, you can purchase it via The Compliance Alliance (£250+VAT for firm-wide access to all our webinars for a year) – just drop a line to info@thecompliancealliance.co.uk.

Other topics covered include:

  • The timeline of an intended Centrebind
  • S100s for the IP acting for creditors
  • VAs: correspondence vote or virtual meeting?
  • Creditors’ powers and the process to seek an IP appointment in bankruptcies and compulsories
  • Administrations: the pros and cons of seeking approval of Proposals by Deemed Consent or a decision procedure
  • How creditors can stay in the loop on communications


Leave a comment

New IP Fees Rules: Simples?

0434 Brown lemur2

With little more than benign overviews of the new fees rules out there, I thought I would examine them a bit closer.  What are the practical implications of the rules and do they contain any risky trap-doors?

My overriding thoughts are similar to those I have on the pre-pack changes: in an apparent effort to improve transparency, is the whole process becoming so unwieldy that it will turn IPs off altogether?  Maybe that’s the plan: make it so difficult to seek time costs that IPs switch to fixed/% fees.

As you know, the new rules take effect from 1 October 2015.  They can be found at: http://goo.gl/mekR5j.

Stephen Leslie, for Lexis Nexis, has produced a good basic summary of what they contain at: http://goo.gl/eqs9Aq.  R3’s Technical Bulletin 109 and Dear IP 65 also cover the subject.

S98s: same problem, different solutions

For CVLs, when should the liquidator set out his fees estimate?

R4.127(2A) will state that “the liquidator must prior to the determination of” the fee basis give the fees estimate (and details of expenses) to each creditor.  It seems to me that reference to “liquidator” requires the IP to be in office – so the fees estimate cannot be provided, say, along with notice of the S98 meeting.

But am I reading too much into this?  After all, R2.33 currently refers to pre-administration costs incurred by the “administrator”, when clearly the IP isn’t in office as administrator when the costs are incurred.  Therefore, maybe reference in the new rules to “liquidator” similarly is sloppy-hand to include “the person who would become liquidator”.  If that is the case, then maybe the expectation is that IPs will provide fees estimates along with S98 notices with a view to running S98 meetings along the same lines as they are at present.

Of course, then there’s the argument about how an IP is supposed to come up with a sensible estimate before he knows anything about the case.  Ok, he will have a better idea – but still not a great one – when the Statement of Affairs is drafted, but that’s little more than a few scribbles on a page, if that, at the stage when the S98 notices are issued.  So how long “prior” to the resolution should the liquidator “give” the information?  Given that S98s are pretty swift events anyway, would it be acceptable to send estimates the day before the S98 meeting..?

A confabulation of compliance consultants, especially with nothing more to guide us than a handful of new rules, is bound to generate a variety of proposed solutions.  Here are just three of them:

(i)         The return of the Centrebind

A Centrebind would overcome the problem of the IP being in office at the time of issuing the estimate and 14 days or thereabouts would seem sufficient to provide creditors with a reasonable estimate before the S98 meeting.

Of course, Centrebinds went out of fashion because of the limited powers the members’ liquidator has before the S98 meeting is held.  It’s not a great place to be as an office holder.  Do we really want to return to that practice wholesale?  And given the Cork Committee’s dissatisfaction over Centrebinds, would the regulators take a dim view if the practice were taken up again just to ensure that the IP could get his fees approved at the S98 meeting?  Some might argue that it’s the most practical way of working with the rules, but are there alternative solutions..?

(ii)        A second creditors’ meeting

This was my first thought when I read the rules: why seek a fees resolution at the S98 meeting?  Would it really be such a chore to convene another creditors’ meeting soon after appointment?

True, it would add another chunk of costs to the estate, but would IPs be criticised for taking this approach?  After all, how much of a solid estimate can an IP give before he truly knows what is involved in the case?  In my view, the costs of convening a second meeting would be entirely justifiable, as it seems to be the way the rules are pushing IPs.  Indeed, the rules as a whole are hardly cost-saving, given the additional work IPs will need to undertake to provide estimates and seek increases, if necessary later on.

Of course, in having a second meeting, IPs run the risk that the creditors already will have lost interest and they’re left with inquorate meetings and no resolution.  Also, as the liquidator (or an associate) will be chairman of the second meeting, they won’t be able to rely on the director-chairman’s vote or his use of general proxies.  However, the practice of looking to the director to approve the liquidator’s fees is viewed with scepticism anyway – many observers don’t recognise that, with so little creditor engagement, it’s sometimes the only practical way – so maybe it is a practice that we should be distancing ourselves from in any event.

(iii)       Fixed fees

This wasn’t my idea, but I see the attraction of it, particularly for “burial jobs”.

Given all the hassle of providing a detailed estimate of time costs, why bother, especially on jobs where in all likelihood the time costs incurred will outstrip the asset realisations net of other costs?  If liquidators were to seek a fixed fee, they would still need to provide, prior to the fees resolution, “details of the work the liquidator proposes to undertake and the expenses the liquidator considers will, or are likely to be, incurred”, but they could avoid providing the full estimated time costs breakdown.

Thus (provided that the IP doesn’t need to be in office as liquidator at the time), along with the S98 notices or just before the meeting, the IP can provide a pretty standard summary of tasks to undertake in any liquidation and set out the proposal to seek fees of £X.  If the SoA shows assets of, say, £15,000, the SoA/S98 fee is £7,500 of this and there are a few £hundreds of standard expenses, a fixed fee of £10,000 would seem reasonable to cover everything that a liquidator needs to do and, 9 times out of 10, there would be no need to seek an increase.

I guess that the proxy forms should list the proposed fee resolution in full, which would suggest that the IP knows what he wants to charge at the point of issuing the S98 notices.  As mentioned above, this would involve a degree of uncertainty, but for IPs working in the burial market, I can see that the risk is outweighed by the simplicity of this approach.  With Reg 13 ditched, IPs might not need to maintain time records* – what could be simpler?! – and they wouldn’t suffer the closure Catch 22 of billing time costs at a point when they haven’t yet spent the time closing the case.

But does this solution have legs for anything other than the simplest of jobs, where the IP would always be looking at a time costs write-off from the word go?  On its own, I don’t think so.  However, I don’t think it would be beyond the realms of possibility to devise a fairly standard formula for seeking fees on a combination of a fixed sum and a percentage basis.  This might help address any unexpected asset realisations, for example antecedent transactions or hidden directors’ loans.  Seeking percentage fees of such asset realisations would also deal with the concerns that it may be both impractical and indiscrete to propose fees estimates detailing what investigatory work is anticipated and how much that is likely to cost.

With several possibilities available, evidently S98s will require some thought and planning in readiness for 1 October.

* Although the Insolvency Practitioners (Amendment) Regulations 2015 are removing the Regulation 13 IP Case Record and thus, with it, the specific requirement to maintain “records of the amount of time spent on the case”, I do wonder whether an IP will be expected to continue to be prepared to meet the requirements of R1.55, R5.66 and Reg 36A of the 1994 Regs as regards providing time cost information to pretty-much any interested party who asks.  I know that no one asks, but with the continued existence of these Rules and Reg, does the abolition of Reg 13 really mean the abolition of time cost records in fixed/percentage fee cases?

Administrations: confusing

Of course, when tinkering with fee approval, it was always going to prove confusing for Administrations!  Here are a few reasons why:

Para 52(1)(b) cases

The current Act & Rules do not prescribe the process for seeking fee approval from secured (and preferential) creditors in Para 52(1)(b) cases.  Therefore, particularly where the Administrator has been appointed by a secured creditor and so will be reporting to his appointor outside of the statutory process, often a request is made very early on for approval for fees.

In future, if the Administrator is looking for time costs, he will need to “give to each creditor” the fees and expenses estimates before “determination” of the fee basis.  This indicates to me that an Administrator will not be able to seek approval for fees from a secured creditor before he has issued his Proposals to all creditors… unless he sends the estimates to all creditors in something other than his Proposals (unlikely)… or unless approval rests with other creditors in addition to his appointor – i.e. another secured creditor or also the preferential creditors – because it would seem to me that the basis of his fees is not “determined” until all necessary creditors have approved it.

This also means that an Administrator’s Proposals will have to include the fees and expenses estimates even for Para 52(1)(b) cases.  I can see some sense in this, as unsecured creditors can always requisition a meeting to form a committee that will override the secureds’/prefs’ approval of fees.  However, it seems quite a leap in policy, given that the full SIP9 information is not currently required in Proposals in these cases.

Changed outcomes

I am not surprised that the Service has introduced a new rule to deal with some Administrations where the prospective outcome has changed so that a different class of creditors is now in the frame for a recovery.  The Enterprise Act’s dual mechanism for obtaining fee approval depending on the anticipated outcome was always meant to have ensured that fees were approved by the party whose recovery was reduced because of the fees.  It’s true that the Act & Rules often do not deliver that consequence (not least because Para 52(1)(c) cases aren’t dealt with at all properly), but that has always been touted as the policy objective.

Sure enough, Dear IP 65 repeats this objective: “the new provision revises to whom the office holder must make a request or application in such circumstances [as described below] to make sure that such matters are determined by parties with the appropriate economic interest”.  Yes, but does it..?

In future, if fees have been approved on a Para 52(1)(b) case by secureds/prefs and the Administrator wants to draw fees in excess of the previous estimate, but he now thinks that a (non-p part) unsecured dividend will be made, he will need to seek approval from the unsecured creditors.  Fine.

However, there is no new provision to deal with outcomes changing in the other direction.  For example, if an Administrator originally thought that there would be a (non-p part) unsecured dividend – so he sought approval for fees by a resolution of the unsecured creditors – but now he thinks that there won’t be a dividend and maybe even that the secureds/prefs will suffer a shortfall, to whom does he look for approval of fees in excess of the previous estimate?  From what I can see, he will still go to the unsecured creditors.

[Theoretically, he might be able to issue revised Proposals in which he makes a Para 52(1)(b) statement, so that the secureds/prefs have authority to approve his fees.  In any event, the changed outcome might make revised Proposals appropriate.  But then what?  Would that result in the basis of his fees not being “determined” with the consequence that he has to issue fees and expenses estimates again to every creditor before he can seek the secureds’/prefs’ approval to the basis of his fees?]

Given that the OFT study concluded that secured creditors are so much better at controlling fees than unsecureds are, why not hand the power to secured creditors automatically by means of the new rules when the outcome deteriorates, in the same way that they shift the power automatically from the secureds to the unsecureds when the outcome improves?

Transitional provisions

This is more just a headache than confusing: one more permutation to accommodate in systems.

In general, the transitional provisions are designed so that, if an IP takes office after 1 October 2015, he will need to go through the new process to get his fees approved.  In effect, they treat Para 83 CVLs as new appointments, so the new rules disapply R4.127(5A) for Para 83 CVLs beginning after October in relation to Administrations that began before October.  Thus, Para 83 CVL Liquidators will not be able to rely on any fee approvals in the Administration.  Instead, they will have to go through the new process.

However, R4.127(5A) kicks back in for Para 83 CVLs following Administrations that begin after 1 October.  This is because, in these cases, the Administrator will have already gone through the new process in order to get fee approval, so it seems reasonable that the Liquidator can continue to rely on this approval.  Of course, the Liquidator will be subject to the Administrator’s fee estimate, so if he wants to draw fees in excess of the estimate, he will need to go through the new process for approval.

It might seem a bit much to expect an Administrator to be able to estimate a subsequent Liquidator’s fees.  For once, I think that the Insolvency Service has been sensible: the rules state that the Administrator’s estimates may include any subsequent Liquidator’s fees and expenses, not must – it’s good to see office holders left with a choice for a change!  Thus, where the Administrator’s estimates have not provided anything for the Liquidator, an increase in the estimate is probably going to be one of his first tasks.

I wonder if an Administrator’s estimate might be devised so that, if he has not used up his estimate in full, then it can be treated as the Liquidator’s estimate..?  I suspect the regulators might take a dim view of that…

Compulsory Liquidations: inconsistent treatment?

I didn’t spot this one, but it was passed to me by a Technical & Compliance Manager (thank you, D).

As explained above, the transitional provisions seem to be designed so that the critical date is the date of the IP’s appointment, rather than the more commonly-used insolvency event date.

It gets complicated, however, when one tries to define every way that an IP can be appointed.  For compulsory liquidations, the transitional provisions cover appointments (post-1 Oct) by: creditors’ meeting (S139(4)); contributories’ meeting (139(3)); and the court following an administration or CVA (S140).

What about appointments by the Secretary of State (S137)?

I cannot see why these appointments should be treated differently.  Does this mean that no Secretary of State appointments will be subject to the new rules?  Or does it mean that all SoS appointments will be subject to them..?

I have asked the Insolvency Service for comments.

Practical difficulties

Of course, there are practical difficulties in devising fee and expenses estimates for each case.  The Impact Assessment for the new rules (http://goo.gl/vCOsnS) state: “Based on informal discussions with IPs and internal analysis by the Insolvency Service it has been estimated that the costs of learning about the new requirements will be relatively moderate as in many cases IPs produce estimates of the work they will be undertaking for their own budgeting purposes. Therefore the industry has the pre existing infrastructure in place to produce estimates and so there will no additional set up costs for business. All the information that will be needed for the estimates is already available to IPs so there will be no additional costs of gathering information” (paragraph 34).  What nonsense!  Even if IPs do estimate fees at the start of a job, they are little more than finger-in-the-air estimates and are way less sophisticated than the new rules envisage.

The Insolvency Service followed up this nonsense with the suggestion that it would take IPs 1 hour to get their systems up to scratch for the changes!  Personally, I feel that such a fantasy-based statement is an insult to my intelligence.

In relation to generating fee and expenses estimates, the Impact Assessment states: “The work is likely to be an administrative task extended from the existing practice to produce estimates for business planning so we believe the work is likely to be completed by support staff within practices. It is estimated that the task will take around 15 minutes per case” (paragraph 36).  This is just so much nonsense!

Anyway, back to the practicalities…

The Insolvency Service has explained that it is working with the JIC to tackle “the key challenge… to present this information [the fees and expenses estimates] in a clear, concise format that the creditor, i.e. the end user, finds both useful and informative” (Dear IP 65, article 55).  I guess we are talking here about a revised SIP9.

Given that it has taken the IS/JIC ten months (and counting) to complete a revised SIP16 following Teresa Graham’s report, how close to the 1 October deadline do you think we’ll get before we see a revised SIP9?  I know that the SIP16 revision has been dependent on the pre-pack pool being set up, but I reckon it’s all going to get a bit tense towards early autumn.

The issue is: do we gamble now on what we think the regulators will want or do we sit and wait to see?  The new rules require that time costs fee estimates specify:

“details of the work the insolvency practitioner and his staff propose to undertake… [and] the time the insolvency practitioner anticipates each part of that work will take”. 

Is it a safe bet to assume that the regulators will expect a SIP9-style matrix, classifying work as Admin & Planning, Investigations, Realisation of Assets etc.?  Will they also want the estimate to list, not only the total time costs per work category, but also the time costs per staff grade, i.e. the hours plus time costs?  Will they also want a greater level of detail, say breaking down the Admin & Planning etc. categories into sub-categories, for cases where time costs are anticipated to exceed £50,000?  Conversely, what level of detail will they expect for cases with time costs estimated at less than £10,000, given that at present SIP9 requires only the number of hours and average hourly rate to be disclosed for fee-reporting purposes? Finally, will these expectations be, as they are now, set out as a Suggested Format, or will there be required disclosure points?

Given that the rules refer to “each part of that work”, personally I would get cracking now to devise systems and models to produce fees estimates styled on the table in the SIP9 appendix.  I might run some analyses of past cases to see if I could come up with some sensible tables for “typical” cases, maybe examine some outliers to see, for example, how much it costs to realise some difficult assets or pay dividends, depending on the class and number of creditors.  Setting up such templates and systems to capture the key elements of each case is going to take time.  We have less than six months.

Not quite so urgent, but just as systems-based, is the need to design mechanisms for monitoring fees estimates.  It would be useful to know if the major software-providers are designing tools to compare fees estimates to fees taken – much like the bond adequacy review – and whether these tools can be used to identify cases where fees are approaching estimates.

And of course, the rules provide loads more work on creating and revising standard documents and checklists *sigh*!

Finally, an obvious practical difficulty will be ensuring that creditors are still sufficiently engaged some way down the insolvency process to put pen to paper and approve additional fees.

Techies’ corner

I know that the following points are nit-picky, but, as we’re talking about fees approval, I felt that they were important to get right.

When does remuneration arise..?

We’ve had drummed into us that “remuneration is charged when the work to which it relates is done” (R13.13(19)).  This definition was introduced with the new progress reports so that IPs disclose time costs incurred, not just remuneration drawn.

But how does this definition fit with the new rules that state that “the remuneration must not exceed the total amount set out in the fees estimate without approval”?  Does this mean that we need to ask creditors to approve an excess before the time costs are incurred, i.e. before the work is done?  And what if the IP is prepared to write off the excess, does he still need to seek approval?

Yeah, I know, it’s pretty obvious what the intention of the rules is, but I asked the Insolvency Service anyway.  Their lawyer’s view was that the “court would resolve any tension” between the rules by coming to the conclusion that the new rules make it “sufficiently clear that the office holder is permitted to incur additional fees above the level of the estimate, before securing further approval”, because the same rules state that a request for approval must specify the reasons why the office holder “had exceeded” (or is likely to exceed) the fees estimate.  It’s the drawing down of additional fees that would be prohibited without approval, not the incurring of them.  Fair enough.

What “creditors” should be asked in Para 52(1)(b) Administrations..?

I have drafted the article above on the basis of the Insolvency Service’s answer to my second question, although I have to say that I think they could have done a better job at drafting the rules on this one.

New R2.109AB(2) explains which party/parties the Administrator should approach for approval of fees in excess of the estimate.  There are three choices, dependent on who fixed the fee basis in the first place:

“(a)  where the creditors’ committee fixed the basis, to the committee;

“(b)  where the creditors fixed the basis, to the creditors;

“(c)  where the court fixed the basis, by application to the court”.

My question was: if a secured creditor alone fixed the basis, who should approve the excess?  It can hardly be said that “the creditors” approved the basis.  Also, given that the OFT study had concluded that secured creditors seem to control fees quite adequately, perhaps it was felt that there was no need to add another layer of control in these cases…

The Insolvency Service’s response was: “it would be for the secured/preferential creditors to approve if the para 52(1)(b) statement held good. We think the wording of the Rules is sufficiently clear in this regard”.  Well, I’m glad I asked!