WELCOME TO OUR LATEST EDITION OF OUR TRUSTEE QUARTERLY UPDATE!

LEGISLATION

CORPORATE INSOLVENCY AND GOVERNANCE ACT RECEIVES ROYAL ASSENT 

The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 received Royal Assent on 25 June 2020. As reported in our last Update, the Act brings in some major changes to the insolvency regime which are potentially relevant to scheme trustees seeking to enforce their rights against sponsoring employers, in particular:  

The recently published Pension Schemes Bill provides for major extensions of the Pensions Regulator's powers, including the creation of new criminal offences which are very broad in scope and could potentially catch a wide range of people. Whilst the Bill is not set to become law this side of the general election, it seems likely that a future government will seek to enact the measures contained in the Bill, many of which are likely to command cross-party support. 

It is now clear that the Pensions Regulator will take a much tougher approach in future towards employers and scheme funding. The new approach comes after a select committee of MPs looking into the BHS collapse criticised the Regulator for being reactive, slow-moving and reluctant to exercise its powers.

The two key areas where we expect the Regulator to be more aggressive are scheme funding and "moral hazard" powers.

“[C]ourts may account for hypothetical preference actions within a hypothetical [C]hapter 7 liquidation” to hold a defendant bank (“Bank”) liable for a payment it received within 90 days of a debtor’s bankruptcy, held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on March 7, 2017.In re Tenderloin Health, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 4008, *4 (9th Cir. March 7, 2017).

The Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (“Bankruptcy Rules”) require each corporate party in an adversary proceeding (i.e., a bankruptcy court suit) to file a statement identifying the holders of “10% or more” of the party’s equity interests. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7007.1(a). Bankruptcy Judge Martin Glenn, relying on another local Bankruptcy Rule (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. R.

A Chapter 11 debtor “cannot nullify a preexisting obligation in a loan agreement to pay post-default interest solely by proposing a cure,” held a split panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Nov. 4, 2016. In re New Investments Inc., 2016 WL 6543520, *3 (9th Cir. Nov. 4, 2016) (2-1).

Court holds Bankrupt cannot be forced to draw scheme benefits to pay creditors

In its judgment in Horton v Henry the Court of Appeal has held that where a bankrupt member has acquired a right to draw benefits, but has not yet done so (a) his rights under the scheme are not "income" over which the court can make an income payments order under section 310 of the Insolvency Act 1986; and (b) the trustee in bankruptcy cannot compel the member to take his benefits.

Background

MPs' Report on the financial collapse of BHS: what are the key pensions implications?

MPs have published a report on the events leading to the financial collapse of BHS shortly after its sale by Sir Philip Green. As a consequence of BHS's insolvency, its defined benefit pension schemes will enter the PPF.

While a recent federal bankruptcy court ruling provides some clarity as to how midstream gathering agreements may be treated in Chapter 11 cases involving oil and gas exploration and production companies (“E&Ps”), there are still many questions that remain. This Alert analyzes and answers 10 important questions raised by the In re Sabine Oil & Gas Corporation decision of March 8, 2016.[1]

An asset purchaser’s payments into segregated accounts for the benefit of general unsecured creditors and professionals employed by the debtor (i.e., the seller) and its creditors’ committee, made in connection with the purchase of all of the debtor’s assets, are not property of the debtor’s estate or available for distribution to creditors according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit — even when some of the segregated accounts were listed as consideration in the governing asset purchase agreement. ICL Holding Company, Inc., et al. v.