New legislation ushers in the largest change in the UK’s corporate insolvency regime in over 20 years and raises questions for pension schemes.

Fast-tracked through Parliament in the wake of the Covid-19 emergency, the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 came into force on 26 June 2020. It brings in some temporary measures designed to support businesses affected by the pandemic and changes that have been expected for a while. We look at five aspects of the Act that the trustees and employers of UK pension schemes will need to know about.

The Pension Protection Fund has published updated general guidance on insolvency and the assessment period. This guidance is intended to help Insolvency Practitioners (IPs) to understand what they should do if a DB scheme employer suffers an insolvency event and their role and responsibilities during an assessment period.

Key points and actions for IPs

The guidance confirms a number of key points, including:

The Pension Protection Fund (PPF) has published guidance on company voluntary arrangements (CVAs), setting out the issues that it expects to be considered and addressed. The new guidance will be relevant to companies who are considering a CVA which could affect a DB pension scheme, and to advisers working with those companies or with pension scheme trustees.

Before soliciting votes on its bankruptcy plan, a chapter 11 debtor that has filed for bankruptcy typically must obtain court approval of its disclosure statement. As part of the disclosure-statement approval process, interested parties are afforded the opportunity to object. For example, a party may object on the grounds that the disclosure statement lacks sufficient information about the debtor. Sometimes, however, a party objects to the disclosure statement because the chapter 11 plan described by the statement cannot be confirmed.

The ability of a bankruptcy court to reorder the priority of claims or interests by means of equitable subordination or recharacterization of debt as equity is generally recognized. Even so, the Bankruptcy Code itself expressly authorizes only the former of these two remedies. Although common law uniformly acknowledges the power of a court to recast a claim asserted by a creditor as an equity interest in an appropriate case, the Bankruptcy Code is silent upon the availability of the remedy in a bankruptcy case.

In Stern v. Marshall, 131 S. Ct. 2594 (2011), the estate of Vickie Lynn Marshall, a.k.a. Anna Nicole Smith, lost by a 5-4 margin Round 2 of its Supreme Court bout with the estate of E. Pierce Marshall in a contest over Vickie's rights to a portion of the fortune of her late husband, billionaire J. Howard Marshall II. The dollar figures in dispute, amounting to more than $400 million, and the celebrity status of the original (and now deceased) litigants may grab headlines.

Over the past five years, courts have issued rulings of potential concern to buyers of distressed debt. Courts have addressed, among other things, “loan to own” acquisition strategies resulting in vote designation; equitable subordination, disallowance, and other lender liability exposure based upon the claim seller’s misconduct; disclosure requirements for ad hoc committees of debtholders; the adequacy of standardized claims-trading agreements; and claim-filing requirements in the era of computerized records.

Rehabilitating a debtor’s business and maximizing the value of its estate for the benefit of its various stakeholders through the confirmation of a chapter 11 plan is the ultimate goal in most chapter 11 cases. Achievement of that goal, however, typically requires resolution of disagreements among various parties in interest regarding the composition of the chapter 11 plan and the form and manner of the distributions to be provided thereunder.