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.

On 17 September, TPR updated its trustee toolkit to include a new learning module: ‘Winding up a DB scheme, insolvent employer: wind-up or transfer to PPF’. The module, now available to download, covers DB scheme closures where the employer is insolvent.

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware has approved a settlement agreement between three Sea Containers companies, their unsecured creditors and the trustees of the two pension schemes belonging to the UK subsidiary Sea Containers Services Limited.

In a ruling predicted by the Restructuring Review Blog last month, Judge Meredith A. Jury of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California rejected arguments by CalPERS that the Bankruptcy Court should lift the automatic stay and require San Bernardino to pay pension obligations owed to the pension fund. In re City of San Bernardino, California, Case No. 12‑blk‑28006‑MJ , (Bankr. C.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2012) (Docket No. 299).

California has seen a string of three Chapter 9 filings this year and faces a long line of distressed municipalities.  Given this backdrop, the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (“CalPERS”) figures to play a prominent role in the resolution of many of these situations (in or out of bankruptcy).  Thus, the bond‑buying public will scrutinize closely any steps that CalPERS takes to protect its claims in the Bankruptcy Court.

On July 13, 2010, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit unanimously held that auto-parts supplier Visteon Corporation could not terminate health and life insurance benefits for approximately 2,100 retirees during its chapter 11 bankruptcy unless Visteon followed the specific requirements laid out in section 1114 of the Bankruptcy Code, even if Visteon would have had the unilateral right to terminate these benefits outside bankruptcy.1 The Court found that a debtor may terminate any retiree benefits in bankruptcy only if,inter alia, the debt