Skip to main content
Enter a keyword
  • Login
  • Home

    Main navigation

    Menu
    • US Law
      • Chapter 15 Cases
    • Regions
      • Africa
      • Asia Pacific
      • Europe
      • North Africa/Middle East
      • North America
      • South America
    • Headlines
    • Education Resources
      • ABI Committee Articles
      • ABI Journal Articles
      • Covid 19
      • Conferences and Webinars
      • Newsletters
      • Publications
    • Events
    • Firm Articles
    • About Us
      • ABI International Board Committee
      • ABI International Member Committee Leadership
    • Join
    Alberta clarifies alternative settlement methods for DB plan administrators
    2013-11-15

    On November 12, 2013, the Alberta government issued EPPA Update 13-01, in response to recent developments in the actuarial profession affecting defined benefit pension (DB) plans.

    Filed under:
    Canada, Employee Benefits & Pensions, Insolvency & Restructuring, Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP, Actuary
    Location:
    Canada
    Firm:
    Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP
    Tough times and pension funding in Canada: lessons from Slater Steel
    2008-09-17

    The decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal earlier this year in Slater Steel* exposed 10 directors, officers and employees to possible personal liability of $20 million with no meaningful recourse against the insolvent Slater Steel or its assets. This is a reminder that failure to recognize and fulfill fiduciary obligations for a pension plan can expose you to substantial personal liability.

    Filed under:
    Canada, Ontario, Employee Benefits & Pensions, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Fasken, Breach of contract, Fiduciary, Board of directors, Economy, Prejudice, Defined benefit pension plan, Actuary, Court of Appeal for Ontario
    Location:
    Canada
    Firm:
    Fasken
    What is the relevant date for calculating section 75 debts?
    2012-04-16

    Many employers dread triggering debts under section 75 of the Pensions Act 1995 within their defined benefit pension scheme, but in some circumstances it simply cannot be avoided.  Once a section 75 debt has been triggered it is important that the debt is calculated properly.  The Actuary is required to calculate the difference between the value of the scheme's assets and the cost of purchasing annuities to secure all of the liabilities of the scheme.  But what if there is a delay in calculating the debt?  At which date is the Actuary required to ascertain the cost of bu

    Filed under:
    United Kingdom, Employee Benefits & Pensions, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Wedlake Bell, Debt, Liability (financial accounting), Defined benefit pension plan, Actuary, Pensions Act 1995 (UK)
    Authors:
    Alison Hills
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Firm:
    Wedlake Bell
    HM Treasury consultation proposes changes to the administration regime for insurers
    2010-03-31

    On 25 March 2010, HM Treasury published a consultation paper which proposes improvements to the protection and payment of benefits for policyholders of insurers in financial difficulty. In particular, the proposals address certain gaps in the regime for insurers in administration in contrast to the regime applied in liquidation.

    Filed under:
    United Kingdom, Insolvency & Restructuring, Insurance, Norton Rose Fulbright, Public consultations, Liquidation, Default (finance), Financial Services Compensation Scheme, Actuary, HM Treasury (UK), Insolvency Act 1986 (UK)
    Authors:
    David Whear , Noleen John
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Firm:
    Norton Rose Fulbright
    Who is ‘connected’ or ‘associated’?
    2009-01-21

    Pensions and insolvency legislation uses the test in the Insolvency Act 1986 for assessing whether a person is ‘connected’ or ‘associated’ with another. This test is important because various statutory provisions use it, especially in limiting the persons whom the Pensions Regulator can make responsible for pension scheme deficits under the ‘moral hazard’ powers in the Pensions Act 2004. This briefing gives an outline of the statutory provisions and points to some difficult areas.  

    Why is this relevant?  

    Filed under:
    United Kingdom, Employee Benefits & Pensions, Insolvency & Restructuring, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, Share (finance), Shareholder, Beneficiary, Limited liability partnership, Subsidiary, Actuary, Civil partnership in the United Kingdom, The Pensions Regulator (UK), Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (UK), Insolvency Act 1986 (UK), Pension Protection Fund, Pensions Act 2004 (UK), Trustee
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Firm:
    Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer
    A scheme actuary’s calculation of the sponsoring employer’s debt cannot be challenged by insolvency practitioners in the absence of fraud or error
    2008-07-23

    Gleave and others v The Board of the Pension Protection Fund [2008] EWHC 1099 (Ch)

    The High Court ruled that calculations of employer debt by scheme actuaries cannot be challenged by insolvency practitioners unless there is evidence of fraud or error.

    Filed under:
    United Kingdom, Employee Benefits & Pensions, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Norton Rose Fulbright, Fraud, Board of directors, Debt, Retirement, Valuation (finance), Actuary, Pension Protection Fund, High Court of Justice (England & Wales)
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Firm:
    Norton Rose Fulbright
    Section 75 contingent liabilities should be based on the actuary's assessment
    2008-05-29

    A company went into administration and company voluntary arrangements were entered into to effect a rescue of viable parts of the group. As part of that process, a valuation of the liabilities of the companies as at 1 October 2001 was required. They included claims arising under section 75 of the Pensions Act 1995. However, those debts were not triggered until July 2004 and the scheme actuary for did not sign the section 75 certificates and apportion shares amongst the various companies until March 2006.

    Filed under:
    United Kingdom, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, Share (finance), Bankruptcy, Debt, Liability (financial accounting), Valuation (finance), Actuary, Pensions Act 1995 (UK)
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Firm:
    Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer
    Gleave and others v Board of the Pension Protection Fund
    2008-06-12

    [2008] EWHC 1099 (Ch)

    The High Court has ruled that calculations of employer debt by scheme actuaries cannot be challenged by insolvency practitioners unless there is evidence of fraud or error.

    Filed under:
    United Kingdom, Employee Benefits & Pensions, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Norton Rose Fulbright, Fraud, Debt, Retirement, Valuation (finance), Actuary, Pension Protection Fund, High Court of Justice (England & Wales)
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Firm:
    Norton Rose Fulbright
    Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation Issues Proposed Rule for Multiemployer Plan Mergers and Transfers
    2016-06-19

    On June 6, 2016, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (“PBGC”) issued a new proposed rule clarifying the agency’s authority to facilitate the merger of multiemployer pension plans. The rule would implement some of the statutory changes made by the Multiemployer Pension Reform Act of 2014 (“MPRA”).

    Background

    Filed under:
    USA, Employee Benefits & Pensions, Insolvency & Restructuring, Trucker Huss APC, Employee Retirement Income Security Act 1974 (USA), Government agency, Retirement, Mediation, Fair market value, Valuation (finance), Actuary, Development aid, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, Title IV of the US Code
    Authors:
    Robert Frank Schwartz
    Location:
    USA
    Firm:
    Trucker Huss APC
    Insolvency exclusion bars coverage for allegations that actuarial services firm contributed to client's insolvency
    2011-04-01

    The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has held, under California law, that an insurer had no duty to defend an insured actuarial services firm in litigation alleging that the insured’s reserve reviews and rate level recommendations contributed to the insolvency of a medical malpractice self-insurance fund. Zurich Specialties London Limited v. Bickerstaff, Whatley, Ryan & Burkhalter, Inc., 2011 WL 1118463 (9th Cir. Mar. 28, 2011).

    Filed under:
    USA, Insolvency & Restructuring, Insurance, Litigation, Wiley Rein LLP, Bankruptcy, Medical malpractice, Causation (law), Actuary, Malpractice, Ninth Circuit
    Location:
    USA
    Firm:
    Wiley Rein LLP

    Pagination

    • Current page 1
    • Page 2
    • Next page ››
    • Last page Last »
    Home

    Quick Links

    • US Law
    • Headlines
    • Firm Articles
    • Board Committee
    • Member Committee
    • Join
    • Contact Us

    Resources

    • ABI Committee Articles
    • ABI Journal Articles
    • Conferences & Webinars
    • Covid-19
    • Newsletters
    • Publications

    Regions

    • Africa
    • Asia Pacific
    • Europe
    • North Africa/Middle East
    • North America
    • South America

    © 2025 Global Insolvency, All Rights Reserved

    Joining the American Bankruptcy Institute as an international member will provide you with the following benefits at a discounted price:

    • Full access to the Global Insolvency website, containing the latest worldwide insolvency news, a variety of useful information on US Bankruptcy law including Chapter 15, thousands of articles from leading experts and conference materials.
    • The resources of the diverse community of United States bankruptcy professionals who share common business and educational goals.
    • A central resource for networking, as well as insolvency research and education (articles, newsletters, publications, ABI Journal articles, and access to recorded conference presentation and webinars).

    Join now or Try us out for 30 days