Two documents on winding up procedures have recently been released for consultation. The first is a joint statement by the Pensions Regulator, the Pension Protection Fund and the DWP in respect of the Financial Assistance Scheme on the regulation of schemes in wind up and in a PPF assessment period. The second is a set of good practice guidelines from the Pensions Regulator on avoiding delays in the winding up of schemes.

The UK’s Pension Protection Fund (PPF) is about to publish new guidelines to reflect their increased focus on the approval of Insolvency Practitioner’s (IPs) fees. The guidelines require IPs to provide more regular detail of accruing and anticipated costs to the PPF when they are appointed over employers where Defined Benefit (Final Salary) pension schemes are significant creditors. More specifically IPs will now be required to provide a more detailed explanation of how their proposed remuneration reflects the value provided to creditors.

In the United Kingdom, the Pension Protection Fund (“PPF”) is the safety net for the employee members of a defined benefit pension plan or scheme.  The PPF compensates members when an employer has not and cannot put sufficient assets in the pension scheme to meet its obligations to member employees and the employer has suffered a “qualifying insolvency event”.

Bankruptcy Judge Chris Klein recently issued his formal confirmation opinion in Stockton’s Chapter 9 bankruptcy case. While there were no real surprises, the opinion makes for entertaining reading given the Court’s more than serious conclusion that:

The Pensions Schemes Act received Royal Assent yesterday (11 February).

For those involved in restructuring it is important to be aware that the Act introduces new offences, carrying hefty fines and the possibility of imprisonment that apply to “any person”. Given the wide scope of the drafting the new offences could capture directors, insolvency practitioners, lenders and other professional advisors commonly involved in a restructuring whose only defence to such a claim is that they acted with “reasonable excuse” – a term not defined in the legislation.

Remuneration schemes involving Employee Benefit Trusts (EBTs) have become more prevalent over the last 20 years, often as a way of seeking to remunerate key employees without making pay as you earn or national insurance contributions. Given the developments highlighted below, insolvency practitioners are advised to investigate such schemes in matters coming across their desks to see whether funds can be clawed back for the benefit of creditors.

HM Revenue and Customs’ opinion on EBT schemes

Despite vaccines now being available, tough measures remain in place to deal with the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, creating uncertainties for businesses and owners about what the future holds.

The recent Court of Appeal decision in Horton v Henry has highlighted the protection afforded to a bankrupt holding a private pension to the detriment of his bankruptcy creditors.

Facts

Ongoing uncertainties about the COVID-19 pandemic, coupled with the looming deadline of Brexit, mean businesses and owners are in for a tough ride over the next few months, possibly much longer if the UK continues to face restrictions.

The Pension Protection Fund (PPF) is reviewing its insolvency risk model with Experian. The proposals being considered are particularly relevant to the financial services and charity sectors. It is proposed they be introduced from 2018/2019 (and will not be part of the draft levy rules and levy estimate for 2017/18, which we expect will contain few changes).

In summary, the PPF is considering: