The rules on contingent assets are broadly as for last year but there are developments to note. Recertification can take longer than expected if there have been changes in relation to an asset.

Trustees and sponsors should be preparing for the recertification of contingent assets that are to remain in place with a view to levy advantage for the 2018/19 year. If there have been changes in relation to a contingent asset, recertification may take materially longer than otherwise.

The actuary is not required to consider the security of benefits where a bulk transfer without member consents is proposed, the Court has decided.

A transfer without consent cannot be made unless the actuary certifies that, in their opinion, the past service rights each member will be credited with in the receiving scheme will be "broadly no less favourable" than their rights in the transferring scheme.

In September 2014 administrators were appointed over Strada restaurants (trading under SSRL Realisations Limited). The restaurant was tenant of a unit in a shopping centre in Bloomsbury.

There will only be minor changes in the levy rules for 2016/17. They will be practical or technical adjustments.

The PPF remains less than content with the covenant strength behind numbers of contingent asset guarantees. The guidance for 2016/17 will have more on the due diligence it expects.

The consultation document also covers:

Mistaken discharge of land mortgages and rectification atthe Land Registry – can a discharged mortgage secure asubsequent advance?

It is well-established law that a mortgage can be used to secure further advances made by a lender. What happens when a registered mortgage is mistakenly discharged at the Land Registry however? Can it be rectified and used as security for a subsequent advance? NRAM Plc v Evans and another - 2015 EWHC 1543 explores the issues.

We all know that statutory demand can be issued for undisputed debts in excess of £750, and if not satisfied for 21 days, the stat demand is prima facie evidence of insolvency. What happens where there are multiple dents of less than £750 each however? Howell v Lerwick Commercial Mortgage Corporation Ltd [2015] EWHC 1177 (Ch) provides an insight.

The background

In Mark Howell v Lerwick Commercial Mortgage Corporation Limited, the High Court has held that statutory demands will not necessarily be set aside if the undisputed debt is less than £750, where there other debts which would take the cumulative total over this limit.

Facts

Mr Howell obtained finance from Lerwick in 2010 to develop a property and paid £2,750 to Lerwick to obtain a valuation. Mr Howell claimed that the valuation provided was sub-standard, and as a result there were delays in the development and its subsequent sale.

The PPF’s final levy rules for 2015/16 published at the end of last year largely confirmed the consultation drafts but included changes in some details.

We recap on what was known before the final rules came out. Then we look at the changes in the final rules.

Changes already confirmed

Insolvency scoring

Preamble

The COMI rules prevent a foreign based company from accessing the UK insolvency regimes, unless it has a sufficient connection with the UK. However, in Christophorus 3 Limited the High Court approved the ‘flipping up’ of a specially created UK newco in a German group to enter administration.

The background

The High Court described this case as ‘an elaborate scheme for the restructuring and refinancing’ of a German group.

Many schemes will see a sharp increase in their levy next year  as a result of the PPF’s new and more discriminative insolvency  scoring system.

To give you an idea, the PPF expects: