A claim by trustees against an insolvent participating employer (who has ceased to participate in the pension scheme) for its share of the scheme deficit is a contingent obligation at the date of winding up and is admissible in the winding-up. This follows the decision by the Outer House of the Court of Session in Scotland in Burton, Re Direction of Assets [2010] CSOH 174.
On 17 September, the Pension Regulator's Determinations Panel announced that it had issued a determination that six companies within the Lehman Brothers group (including the group's main operating companies in the UK as well as the US parent Lehman Brothers Holding Inc.) should provide financial support to the Lehman Brothers Pension Scheme. This followed a hearing on 8-9 September 2010.
The Federal Labour Court has ruled on the fundamental issue of who will be entitled to the rights under a life insurance policy concluded by the employer in the employee’s favour in the event that an employment relationship comes to an end in the course of the employer’s insolvency proceeding.
The recent bankruptcy filings by infrastructure companies Connector 2000 Association Inc., South Bay Expressway, L.P., California Transportation Ventures, Inc., and the Las Vegas Monorail Company have tested the structures utilized to implement public-private partnerships (P3s) in the United States in several respects. It is still too early to draw definitive conclusions about the impact of these proceedings on P3 structures going forward, but initial rulings in two of the cases are already focusing the minds of project participants on threshold structuring considerations.
In a decision that reaffirms its previous rulings on the jurisdictional limits of bankruptcy courts, the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently held in W.R. Grace & Co. v. Chakarian (In re W.R. Grace & Co.)1 that bankruptcy courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over third-party actions against non-debtors if such actions could affect a debtor’s bankruptcy estate only following the filing of another lawsuit.
It is likely that changes to the employer debt regulations (the so-called "section 75 debt" regime) will come into force on 6 April. These will prevent a debt from arising on certain internal group restructurings where there is no weakening of the employer covenant. However, the regulations are highly prescriptive and are, therefore, less attractive as a means of dealing with section 75 debts when compared to apportionment or withdrawal arrangements.
To promote equal treatment of creditors, the US Congress has armed debtors with the power to bring suit to recover a variety of pre-bankruptcy transfers. Prominent among these is a debtor’s ability under Section 548 of the Bankruptcy Code to recover constructively fraudulent transfers — i.e., transfers made without fair consideration when a debtor is insolvent.
To promote equal treatment of creditors, the US Congress has armed debtors with the power to bring suit to recover a variety of pre-bankruptcy transfers. Prominent among these is a debtor’s ability under Section 548 of the Bankruptcy Code to recover constructively fraudulent transfers — i.e., transfers made without fair consideration when a debtor is insolvent.
On 17 September the DWP published a consultation paper (attaching draft regulations) in which it proposes that certain corporate restructurings will not trigger an employer debt under section 75 of the Pensions Act 1995. Following on from amendments introduced by regulations in 2008, the draft regulations also make some technical amendments to the employer debt regime, which are intended to ease its operation in practice.
Section 75: a reminder