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

In an important recent decision, United States v. Quality Stores, Inc., et al.,1 in which Pepper represented the prevailing party, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that supplemental unemployment compensation benefits (SUB payments) paid by a bankrupt company to its former employees were not wages subject to taxation under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA).

If an employer is affected by an insolvency event the insolvency practitioner or official receiver is obliged to notify the trustees of the employer’s pension scheme, the Pensions Regulator, and the Pension Protection Fund of the fact of the insolvency event. Here, we provide an overview of the pensions issues arising from employer insolvency.

Less than a year after it came into effect on 1 August 2016, the first judgment in relation to the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 2010 (the TP Act 2010) has been handed down in the case of BAE Systems Pension Fund (Trustees) Limited (the Pension Fund) v Bowmer and Kirkland Limited and others (B&K).

After providing an overview of ongoing scheme funding in the last episode, here we delve deeper into contribution obligations when an employer departs from a scheme. We tackle issues including when an employer's debt is triggered, how much the debt is and explore lawful ways to avoid the debt.

Click here to listen to the podcast. 

What role does The Pensions Regulator have when pension schemes need protecting? In episode seven of Pensions in 30 Podcasts, we look further into contribution notices and financial support directions and when they can be brought into play.

Click here to listen to the podcast.

Key Points

The Court of Appeal resolves some of the conflict between insolvency and pensions law in its decision on Horton v Henry.

The Court of Appeal has upheld the High Court decision of the Deputy Judge in Horton v Henry (2014) confirming that a trustee in bankruptcy cannot access uncrystallised funds in a bankrupt's pension arrangements (or force the bankrupt to access them himself).

It’s been almost two years since the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) decision in Indalex Ltd., Re.1 Currently, Canada’s lower courts are being challenged to interpret the decision in a variety of different contexts. The purpose of this article is to review the Indalex decision within the broader context of pre- and post-Indalex case law and to briefly comment on its impact in the lending marketplace. 

In a recent edition of Fully Secured (September 29, 2011 – Volume 2, No. 3), the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Re Indalex Limited was discussed, in which the Ontario Court of Appeal held that a statutory deemed trust claim arising out of a pension plan wind-up deficiency ranked in priority to debtor in possession (“DIP”) financing.

There have been several recent developments with respect to this decision since the date of that publication.

Why has the Financial Support Direction (FSD) been issued?