Summary

Third parties associated with an employer may find themselves liable to contribute to the employer's occupational pension scheme. Where a pension scheme is in deficit, the Pensions Regulator has powers - so-called 'moral hazard' powers - that can require a third party to give financial support or a specific payment to the pension scheme.

The Pensions Regulator (TPR) has issued a statement on Regulated Apportionment Arrangements (RAAs) and employer insolvency.

Employers of multi-employer schemes can use a number of mechanisms under the Employer Debt Regulations 2005 to manage a debt triggered under section 75 of the Pensions Act 1995. Broadly, RAAs can be used in situations where a scheme has entered into a Pension Protection Fund (PPF) assessment period, or is likely to enter into such an assessment period. TPR must approve an RAA.

Summary

Pension scheme trustees will generally be concerned to try to ensure that the “safety net” provided by the Pension Protection Fund (PPF) remains potentially available for their scheme.

The Pension Protection Fund (PPF) has issued guidance for insolvency practitioners. The guide is intended to provide information on how insolvency practitioners and official receivers should interact with the PPF if a sponsoring employer of an eligible occupational pension scheme suffers an insolvency event and the scheme is assessed for entry into the PPF.

Summary

Eastman Kodak Corporation (Kodak US), the US parent of the Kodak group, filed for chapter 11 protection in the US on 19 January 2012. It successfully emerged from bankruptcy on 3 September 2013 as a new restructured technology company focused on imaging for businesses. Many other Kodak companies throughout the world were able to avoid following in their parent’s footsteps and were maintained as going concern businesses while the US bankruptcy process was ongoing.

The Pensions Regulator (the Regulator) recently used its powers under the Pensions Act 1995 to appoint an independent trustee to the exclusion of all other trustees of the scheme. The employer was required to pay the fees and expenses relating to the appointment.

The Regulator decided to use its powers because:

On 24 July 2013, in BESTrustees v Kaupthing, Singer & Friedlander [2013] EWHC 2407 (Ch) the High Court ruled in favour of an underfunded scheme, whose insolvent sponsor hoped to offset £2m in payments against its outstanding debt.

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?  

On 24 July 2013, the Supreme Court handed down its long-awaited judgment in the Nortel/Lehman case on where a contribution notice (CN) or financial support direction (FSD) issued by the Pensions Regulator (TPR) on a company that is already in insolvency proceedings (eg administration) ranks in the order of priority of payment.

In the case of Andrew Fender v National Westminster Bank PLC Judge Purle QC set aside a deed of release that had been executed in the mistaken belief that the company was no longer indebted to the bank.