In this August edition of the Pensions E-Bulletin, we look at the Pensions Regulator’s statement on its approach to financial support directions (FSDs) in insolvency situations, the shortened guidance on incentive exercises issued by Pensions Regulator following the publication of the industry code of good practice as well as noting the updated guidance on multi-employer scheme departures and the consultation by the Takeover Panel on proposals relating to pension scheme trustees. 

FSDs and insolvency – the Regulator’s statement

Tata Steel Limited (Tata) has been intending to end their British operations for some time. As yet, it has been unable to do so as its subsidiary, Tata Steel UK (TSUK), is the principal employer of one of the UK’s largest defined benefit (DB) schemes. The obligations and liabilities under the British Steel Pension Scheme (BSPS) have been deemed by prospective buyers as too great to take on with the Scheme currently running at a deficit of approximately £700 million.

Overturning the High Court and Court of Appeal decisions in Bloom and Others v The Pensions Regulator and Others, the Supreme Court has ruled that financial support directions (FSD)and contribution notices (CN) issued by The Pensions Regulator in insolvencies create “provable debts” which should be given unsecured, non-preferential, creditor ranking.

Eastman Kodak is in the process of emerging from Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the United States. A key part of the process has been the settlement of the $2.8 billion claim by Eastman Kodak’s UK subsidiary pension fund, the Kodak Pension Plan. This has involved the sale of 2 businesses to the Kodak Pension Plan for a total of $325 million in return for a discharge from liability to the Plan. These businesses were valued at $650 million.

The Court of Appeal in England has confirmed that a Trustee in Bankruptcy (“TIB”) cannot force a bankrupt person to elect to take their uncrystallised pension benefits solely so that the TIB can recover the benefit as income for the member's creditors. The decision in Horton v Henry (2016) clarifies the legal position after previous conflicting judgements had been given by the Courts.