KEY POINTS

Raithatha v Williamson (4 April 2012) and Blight and others v Brewster (9 February 2012)

Most pension schemes give the beneficiary an option as to when to start to draw the pension, and whether or not to draw a tax free lump sum. These two cases confirm that a trustee in bankruptcy and a judgment creditor are each entitled to compel a debtor to draw the maximum permitted by the scheme rules, so that the monies realised as a result are available to pay the debt.  

Pension schemes and bankruptcy

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

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?

In Rhinegold Publishing Ltd v Apex Business Development Ltd, Rhinegold and another company owed debts to the defendant in the sums of approximately £22,000 and £31,000 respectively. The defendant presented a winding-up petition against both companies which resulted in settlement being reached. The settlement provided that the companies would pay off the debts owed in full by monthly payments and that no proceedings would be issued in relation to the debts referred to in the original statutory demand if payment was made.

As the economic clouds continue to darken and the threat of a double-dip recession increases, concern about exposure to unsecured bad debts will inevitably dominate the agenda of many companies. If the worst happens and a significant bad debt is incurred, many creditors are reluctant to review the possibilities afforded to them by the Insolvency Act 1986 and seek the solace of VAT bad debt relief. This is often the case even where it is suspected that the directors of the insolvent company have been culpable of misconduct.

In its recent decision in Re Kaupthing Singer and Friedlander^[1], the Supreme Court clarifies the interrelationship between the rule against double proof and the rule in Cherry v Boultbee. The Court considered in particular whether the rule in Cherry v Boultbee is (1) compatible with the principle against double proof, and (2) limited to seeking an indemnity in respect of sums actually paid.

Background

In Re Ruiz (a bankrupt) [2011] EWHC 913 (Fam) the High Court ruled that a wife’s right to occupy the matrimonial home did not prevent her husband’s trustee in bankruptcy (TiB) gaining and enforcing a proprietary interest in the property.

The Facts

M and G married in 2001 and moved into a house purchased by M and registered in his sole name. In 2006 divorce proceedings were initiated, following which G obtained a freezing order over M’s assets and an occupation order over the marital home.  

This appeal was brought by the insolvency practitioners dealing with the Nortel and Lehman Brothers companies. The Regulator’s Determinations Panel has, in relation to both the Nortel and Lehman Brothers pension schemes, issued warning notices of its intention to issue Financial Support Directions (FSDs) against group companies.

Where does liability under a Pensions Regulator Contribution Notice rank in an Employer's insolvency?