Tata Steel Limited (Tata) has been intending to end their British operations for some time. As yet, it has been unable to do so as its subsidiary, Tata Steel UK (TSUK), is the principal employer of one of the UK’s largest defined benefit (DB) schemes. The obligations and liabilities under the British Steel Pension Scheme (BSPS) have been deemed by prospective buyers as too great to take on with the Scheme currently running at a deficit of approximately £700 million.

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?

Facts
Extension for intermingling of assets
Issues

On April 13 2010 the Court of Cassation rendered a noteworthy decision sending two interlocutory questions to the European Court of Justice (ECJ). In anticipation of the ECJ's decision, this update examines the issues raised before the Court of Cassation.

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.

Where lenders rely on floating charge security to make recoveries from companies in administration, some recent cases have massively increased the potential for administration expenses to swallow up those recoveries. The more well-known cases could just be the start. So, what are the potential risks? What can lenders do in the face of the law as it currently stands? What is going to happen next?

The Nortel decisions

Introduction

Treasury has announced the next stage of withdrawal of government support for Northern Rock. It will end its guarantee on wholesale liabilities in three months' time, earlier than planned.

Financial guarantees often contain non-competition clauses. This is mainly to:  

• increase the financier’s recoveries from its principal debtor, by stopping the guarantor from draining money from the principal debtor; and  
• prevent the guarantor from obstructing a restructuring of the principal debtor’s liabilities.  

A recent case suggests these clauses should expressly exclude the “rule in Cherry v. Boultbee”. Zoë Thirlwell and Alexander Hewitt explain.

Counter-indemnity rights  

FMLC has responded on aspects of Treasury’s consultations on resolution of investment banks. The paper’s main recommendations include:

In the current economic climate, landlords are having to deal more frequently with tenants who are in administration. Where the administrators of the tenant are using the property for the purposes of the administration, the moratorium on forfeiture and irritancy proceedings that applies in administrations means that the landlords are unlikely to be able to recover the property in order to relet it.