Readers will recall, on April 1, 2020 the RF President signed RF Law No. 98-FZ, amending RF Law No. 127-FZ On Insolvency (Bankruptcy) of October 26, 2002 (the Law) and authorising the Government to impose a moratorium on creditors’ initiation of bankruptcies to stabilize the economy in exceptional cases (a Moratorium).

Immediately thereafter, by Decree No. 428 of April 3, 2020 as part of the COVID-19 relief program, the Government adopted such a Moratorium until 7 January 2021 (the COVID Moratorium).

New Federal Law No. 266-FZ dated 29 July 2017 (the Amendment Law) introduces notable changes to Russia’s insolvency rules. Importantly, the law does away with the original provisions on vicarious liability of controlling persons in RF Law No. 127-FZ on Insolvency of 26 October 2002 (the Insolvency Law). The Amendment Law expands this concept in a series of new clauses. The rules came into force 30 July 2017.

The new personal bankruptcy law enters into force on 1 October 2015

The new personal bankruptcy law enters into force on 1 October 2015. Individuals will now be allowed to go bankrupt while creditors are left to struggle. The rules have caused much apprehension and it remains to be seen how business will operate in the new environment.

Background

Under the Pensions Act 2004 the Pensions Regulator (tPR) has the power to impose a financial support direction (FSD) requiring a company “connected or associated” with the sponsoring employer of a UK pension fund to provide financial support to the pension fund. To date tPR has used the power in insolvencies.

This summer has seen several pension issues making the news. They show how essential it is for employers and trustees to keep abreast of how developments impact on their arrangements.

Jay Doraisamy looks at five areas which have made the headlines this summer:

The High Court has recently considered whether a bankrupt individual of pensionable age can be forced to draw his pension to pay his creditors.

Raithatha v. Williamson [2012] EWHC 909 (Ch)

Background

A bankruptcy order was made against Mr Raithatha on 9 November 2010. Mr Raithatha's trustee in bankruptcy applied for an income payments order (IPO) against Mr Raithatha's pension shortly before he was due to be discharged from bankruptcy. Mr Raithatha was then aged 59 and his pension scheme allowed him to draw a pension from age 55.

Pension scheme assets can rise and fall. So can liabilities. The timing of the section 75 debt calculation is, therefore, critically important to the ability of the scheme to meet its liabilities.

So when should trustees calculate their section 75 debt? Can they use one date to calculate scheme assets and choose a different date to calculate the cost of buying out the scheme’s liabilities?

On December 29, 2011, the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued an opinion in the chapter 11 bankruptcy case In re Nortel Networks, Inc., holding that the "automatic stay" on creditor collection actions outside the bankruptcy applied to prevent the UK Pension Protection Fund and the Trustee of the UK Nortel Pension Plan from participating in UK pensions proceedings initiated by the UK Pensions Regulator.

TPR settled its dispute with Michael Van de Wiele (VdW) in relation to its UK pension scheme and issued a Contribution Notice (CN) for £60,000. Although this is significantly less than the £21 million originally sought and the £5.08 million decided by the Determinations Panel, TPR says it is “business as usual” for the use of its statutory anti-avoidance powers. A settlement at this level might be viewed as a defeat for TPR and an indication that CNs are not a potent weapon to deal with the avoidance of employer debts. That view would be seriously misguided.

The Determinations Panel gave its reasons for imposing financial support directions (FSDs) on six Lehman Brothers companies on 29 September 2009. SNR Denton represented 22 of the 44 companies targeted for FSDs. The Determinations Panel accepted our submission that it would not be reasonable to impose an FSD on any of the companies we represented because of the Pensions Regulator's failure to particularise its case against them.

Background