Earlier this year, the Pension Protection Fund (PPF) published its consultation on the second PPF Levy Triennium (2015/16 to 2017/18) which proposed wholesale changes to the measure of insolvency risk and significant changes in respect of contingent assets and the PPF’s treatment of asset-backed contributions. 

As we await the outcome of the consultation, employers and trustees may find a summary of the proposals helpful in trying to gauge how they could impact their scheme’s PPF levy. 

The PPF-specific insolvency risk model

Following the Court of Appeal’s decision in Game it is necessary to consider the effect of the court’s decision on the treatment of rents in administration and by analogy liquidation – and the potential consequences of that change.

What types of insolvency does the decision affect?

The Court of Appeal’s decision explicitly states that it is applicable as to the treatment of rents in both administration and liquidation.

What about existing cases?

Michael John Andrew Jervis v Pillar Denton Limited (Game Station) and others [2013] EWHC 2171 (Ch) (“Game”)

Game has come to the courts against the background of two previous High Court decisions on the treatment of lease rents in administration. Recent decisions on this point have arisen out of cases where landlords made claims for rent in the administration of tenant companies.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal will consider an interesting insolvency case involving hog feed suppliers who claim of priority for the cost of feed over Farm Credit Canada and Bank of Montreal, the hog producer’s secured creditors. 

In general, the Court found Suppliers may have an unjust enrichment claim arising from an alleged fraud on the part of producer, who allegedly ordered feed while preparing for the Companies Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”) application with no intention of paying for the feed.

In a recent judgment, HHJ Cooke found in favour of the defendant solicitors in a claim by the Trustees in Bankruptcy of Clifford Shore that Irwin Mitchell had failed properly to advise Mr Shore as to the risk of pursuing litigation that was subject to limitation arguments.

Kevin Hellard, Amanda Wade v Irwin Mitchell [2013] EWHC 3008 (Ch)

Background

For some, environmental liability is akin to a game of hot potato. In other words, no one wants to be the one left holding the potato when the music stops playing - otherwise they could be facing significant obligations to remedy contaminated lands. As remediation costs can be significant, owners, purchasers and creditors must tread carefully when dealing with contaminated real estate.

The British Columbia case of Botham Holdings Ltd. (Trustee of) v. Braydon Investments Ltd. is a reminder that tax and estate plans must take non-tax issues and law into account. It can be extremely dangerous to let the tax tail wag the dog!

Mr. Botham and a family trust were the shareholders of Botham Holdings Ltd. ("Holdings"). In 2004 Holdings was fortunate enough to realize a large capital gain and, as a result, incurred a significant income tax liability.

Generally speaking, the policy of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”) is not to interfere with secured creditors, leaving them free to realize upon their security. While this makes sense in the abstract, the question that is most often posed by secured creditors is “what does this mean in a practical sense?  What exactly do I need to do to retrieve my secured asset?”

Perimeter Transportation Ltd. (Re), 2010 BCCA 509, on appeal from 2009 BCSC 1458

Century Services Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2010 SCC 60

Section 222(3) of the Excise Tax Act creates a deemed trust for unremitted GST, which operates despite any other act of Canada, except the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act. However section 18.3(1) of the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (the "CCAA") provides that any statutory deemed trust in favour of the Crown does not operate under the CCAA, subject to certain exceptions which do not mention GST.