The Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) has held once again that the Insolvency Directive does not require member states to put measures in place to fully fund lost pension rights on the insolvency of an employer. This conclusion is contrary to some reporting in the pensions press earlier today.

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has ruled today that the Pension Protection Fund regime does not satisfy European law requirements. The judgment is likely to have a significant impact on the PPF, and could have wider knock-on effects for many occupational pension schemes.

Background to the case

A major consideration for any Claimant in an action seeking monetary damages is whether the Defendant to an action has the assets to meet a judgment, whether that be a claim against an individual or a limited company backed by the personal guarantee of an individual. That consideration should extend to a scenario where the Defendant has a judgment made against them and then either refuses to pay or cannot pay on time. The Claimant may have to seek their bankruptcy to achieve some payment.

Introduction:

The Government has launched a new consultation on a number of technical and regulatory changes affecting pensions legislation. One of the proposed changes is to amend the entry rules in relation to the Pension Protection Fund (PPF). The consultation follows on from the recent Supreme Court decision in Olympic Airlines and the introduction of specific legislation to ensure the beneficiaries of that particular scheme received protection in circumstances where the entry rules otherwise excluded them.

Case: (The Trustees of the Olympic Airlines SA Pension and Life Assurance Scheme (Appellants) v Olympic Airlines SA (Respondent) [2015] UKSC 27)

The Pensions Regulator has announced, following several years of proceedings and court skirmishes, that a compromise has been reached in relation to the Financial Support Directions (FSDs) issued under the Lehman Brothers UK pension scheme.

FSDs and the Lehmans case – a reminder

The Supreme Court has handed down its highly anticipated judgment in the joint Nortel Networks/Lehman Brothers appeal.  The administrators of Nortel and Lehman Brothers entities had appealed against the Court of Appeal’s decision that Financial Support Directions (FSDs) issued by the Pensions Regulator (“the Regulator”) after the appointment of administrators attracted priority status as an administration expense.  Rejecting the decision of the lower courts, the Supreme Court ruled that an FSD issued during the course of an administration will rank as a provable debt rather than a

The Pensions Regulator has today issued a Statement on its power to issue financial support directions (“FSDs”) against companies after an insolvency event has occurred. The Statement follows longstanding concerns of insolvency practitioners, which have arisen from ongoing court proceedings brought by the Lehman Brothers and Nortel administrators.

Background

A private member's bill, Bill C-372, was introduced on 17 October 2017 with proposed amendments to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Companies Creditors’ Arrangement Act. The Bill seeks to protect retired workers whose pensions and group insurance plans are at risk if their previous employer goes bankrupt or undergoes restructuring. The Bill would provide for priority status for claims in respect of underfunded pension plans, as well as claims arising as a result of an employer terminating its participation in a group insurance plan.

Following the collapse of Banco Espirito Santo, the Court of Appeal held that a $835m loan had not been transferred to Novo Banco.

This case concerns a Court of Appeal hearing following the 2014 collapse of substantial Portuguese bank Banco Espirito Santo ('BES').

In June 2014, Oak Finance Luxembourg SA ('Oak') entered a facility agreement with BES to lend approximately $835million. The agreement contained English law and jurisdiction clauses.