Introduction – why does this matter?

31/10/2016 Pensions Update ­ October 2016 http://bakerxchange.com/rv/ff002b980788f142ab3974e23146b6f2e393d02b 1/4 Pensions Update October 2016 In this issue Court of Appeal clarifies treatment of pensions on bankruptcy PPF publishes consultation on 2017/2018 levy DWP consults on valuing pensions for the advice requirement Regulator declares rule change void Next steps in leaving the European Union Committee publishes new evidence on regulation of pension schemes Regulator launches blog Government cancels plans t

The Court of Appeal in England has confirmed that a Trustee in Bankruptcy (“TIB”) cannot force a bankrupt person to elect to take their uncrystallised pension benefits solely so that the TIB can recover the benefit as income for the member's creditors. The decision in Horton v Henry (2016) clarifies the legal position after previous conflicting judgements had been given by the Courts.

The Court of Appeal has ordered a reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) in Grenville Holden Hampshire v the Board of the Pension Protection Fund which involves a pension scheme member, whose early retirement pension was reduced by two-thirds on the scheme's entry to the PPF, arguing that the statutory cap on compensation payable by the PPF does not give full effect to Article 8 of the EU Insolvency Directive.

The Court of Appeal has ruled that the trustees of two occupational defined benefit (DB) schemes can use a particular mechanism, known as a Headway agreement, to maximise the amount of s.75 debt payable by the employers.

In the case of Sarjeant and others v Rigid Group Ltd, both schemes commenced winding up in 2000. No insolvency event had occurred before the winding up in either case. The applicable legislation at the relevant time required the s.75 debt to be calculated on the MFR basis.

OTG v Barke is the latest case from the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) to consider how the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations (TUPE) apply in the context of the sale of a business in administration. The case largely resolves the uncertainty in that context and affirms the general practice of administrators and purchasers of businesses from them.

A group of senior lenders to European Directories SA, a Macquarie Group Ltd affiliate, have succeeded on their appeal to the English Court of Appeal in litigation with European Directories' mezzanine lenders over a €2billion loan restructuring plan for the company.

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.

The Court of Appeal has heard the appeal in Oakland v Wellswood (Yorkshire) Ltd. Although its written judgment has not yet been published, it appears that it heard an appeal only on a narrow point of employment law and did not give definitive guidance on the application of the insolvency provisions in the TUPE Regulations which had been the principal issue in the EAT.

Many commercial landlords will currently be dealing with issues arising out of their tenants' financial difficulties, in particular the impact of insolvency proceedings. For tenants who are in administration, a moritorium applies, which will prevent a landlord taking action against the tenant without leave from the Court. Generally, the Courts will have a degree of sympathy for landlords, and will afford significant weight to the landlords’ proprietary rights when deciding whether to allow landlords to commence proceedings against a tenant.