The Pensions Regulator (TPR) recently issued its draft guidance on its approach to investigating and prosecuting the new criminal offences under the Pension Schemes Act 2021. In this blog post, we share our thoughts on the level of comfort that might be gleaned in relation to criminal risk if the draft guidance were finalised in its current form, focusing on the particular concerns that would remain for restructuring activity.

Background

The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (the Act) introduced significant changes to insolvency law, including permitting companies to propose a “restructuring plan”. The restructuring plan offers a flexible option for companies that sponsor defined benefit pension schemes to compromise their obligations to creditors and, potentially, to the pension scheme itself.

The Pension Schemes Act 2021 (‘the Act’) has received Royal Assent, with the UK government indicating that key provisions will come into force by autumn 2021.

The Act includes a number of provisions that will significantly impact restructuring activity involving financially distressed groups with a UK defined-benefit (DB) pension scheme.

What will change under the Act?

Below are some of the most significant changes being introduced by the Act.

We reported in our previous blog published on 15 June 2020 (“The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill – a pensions perspective”) that a number of pensions concerns had been raised about the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill (the Bill). As a result, the Bill was subject to significant amendment and debate from a pensions perspective in the House of Lords.

The new Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill (the Bill) has been introduced into the UK Parliament and proposes significant changes to insolvency law, including:

Following the judgments in recent years on attribution to a company of its directors' knowledge in Bilta (UK) Ltd (In Liquidation) v Nazir [2015] UKSC 23 and UBS AG (London Branch) and another v Kommunale Wasserwerke Leipzig [2017] EWCA Civ 1567, the UK Supreme Court has once more returned to this issue in Singularis Holdings Ltd (in Official Liquidation) (a Company Incorporated in The Cayman Islands) v Daiwa Capital Markets Europe Ltd [2019] UKSC 50, in a case where a bank (Daiwa) was held liable for breaching its Quincecare duty of care to its customer,

English courts recognise that shareholders hold a separate legal personality from the body corporate they own a stake in and will only go behind the corporate veil in limited circumstances. In the recent case of Onur Air Taşimacilik AŞ v Goldtrail Travel Ltd (In Liquidation) 1 , the Court of Appeal considered whether the financial means of the appellant’s wealthy controlling shareholder could be taken into account when making an order that the appellant had to make a substantial payment into court as a condition of being able to pursue its appeal.

Summary

Summary

This briefing looks at the “period of grace” provisions that can apply in some cases to the debts that arise on employers under section 75 of the Pensions Act 1995.
In a multi-employer scheme, if one employer ceases to employ any active members, a s75 debt can arise on that employer. The period of grace provisions allow the employer to serve a notice so that the debt is suspended, giving the employer a period (at least a year, but potentially up to three years if the trustees agree) in which to employ an active member.

Summary

Pension scheme trustees will generally be concerned to try to ensure that the “safety net” provided by the Pension Protection Fund (PPF) remains potentially available for their scheme.