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

Introduction

On 20 May 2020, the UK Government published the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill (the “Bill”). The Bill was published in response to Covid-19 with a view to assisting companies and directors through these challenging times.

The Pension Schemes Bill promised in the Queen’s Speech has been introduced into Parliament. At nearly 200 pages the Bill is comprehensive, wide-ranging and ticks many of the boxes on the Pensions Regulator’s wish list. It substantially reflects the Bill which briefly appeared in the autumn: this time, it seems likely to make it to the statute book. The Bill as drafted has potentially far-reaching implications, if it is passed substantially in its current form.

Transactions and restructuring

Pension Schemes Bill – Additional hurdle for English law restructurings?

The intention was that the Pension Schemes Bill would enhance the Pensions Regulator’s powers to respond earlier when employers fail to take their pension responsibilities seriously, targeting “reckless bosses who plunder people’s pension pots”. However, the new criminal offences proposed as part of the Bill may inadvertently create additional hurdles for English law restructurings, making them potentially more expensive and difficult.

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.

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.

(6th Cir. Oct. 3, 2016)

The Sixth Circuit affirms the district court’s dismissal of the pensioners’ challenge to the confirmation order entered in the Chapter 9 bankruptcy case filed by the City of Detroit, Michigan. The pensioners filed the action to challenge the plan’s reduction of their benefits. The Court holds that the doctrine of equitable mootness applies. The pensioners did not obtain a stay, the plan has been substantially consummated, and many actions have been undertaken or completed under the plan. Opinion below.

Judge: Batchelder