In related Nortel and Lehman Brothers cases, the UK Supreme Court ruled in July that Financial Support Directions ("FSDs") and Contribution Notices ("CNs") under the Pensions Act 2004 rank as provable debts if issued against insolvent targets.

Overturning the decisions of Mr Justice Briggs and the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court has ruled that such FSD or CN liabilities are not administration or liquidation expenses. It has also confirmed that they do not rank behind other provable debts (the option which had become known as the 'black hole').

HIGHLIGHTS

The credit crunch caused problems for businesses at the same time as the value of pension scheme assets plunged, adding ballooning defined benefit pension deficits to the woes of struggling companies.

Company insolvencies, and attempts at restructuring to avoid insolvencies, can have a significant impact on the pension schemes sponsored by those companies. The pensions issues can also act as a significant obstacle to restructuring.

The UK Supreme Court has recently overturned a much-criticised and controversial ruling of the Court of Appeal by finding an ambiguously worded advance payment bond effective in the case of insolvency. In doing so, it clarified the proper role and application of considerations of business common sense when interpreting commercial contracts. Where a clause is capable of two or more possible interpretations, Rainy Sky SA v Kookmin Bank held that the court should prefer the one which is most consistent with common business sense.

Proposals issued October 2010

Confirmation given 31 January 2011

Policy statement issued May 2011

Draft guidance on the bespoke measurement of investment risk issued May 2011. Consultation ends on 24 June 2011

Consultation on the 2012/13 levy determination expected in autumn 2011

The PPF has confirmed its intention to implement a new levy framework from 2012/13. Key features of the framework confirmed in the policy statement include:

The High Court has allowed an application for an order to enable access to a bankrupt’s pension to satisfy debts arising from fraud. Prior to the bankruptcy, judgment was obtained against him for £3.2m plus costs.

The Pensions Regulator's new powers: what lenders need to know Updated August 2021 Pension briefing Following the insolvencies of Carillion and BHS and the associated fallout for the pension schemes they sponsored, the Pensions Regulator (tPR) announced it was going to be “clearer, quicker and tougher”. The Pension Schemes Act 2021 (the Act) gives tPR significant new powers to intervene where the security of defined benefit (DB) pensions may be at risk.

Nach einer umwandlungsrechtlichen Spaltung haften die übertragende Gesellschaft und die übernehmende Gesellschaft gegenüber den Versorgungsberechtigten zehn Jahre lang als Gesamtschuldner für die Pensionsverpflichtungen. Wird eine der beteiligten Gesellschaften insolvent, hat der Pensions-Sicherungs-Verein (PSV) einen Anspruch gegen die andere beteiligte Gesellschaft, denn der Anspruch der Versorgungsberechtigten gegen die andere Gesellschaft aufgrund der Gesamtschuld geht auf ihn über.

This summer has seen several pension issues making the news. They show how essential it is for employers and trustees to keep abreast of how developments impact on their arrangements.

Jay Doraisamy looks at five areas which have made the headlines this summer:

The High Court has recently considered whether a bankrupt individual of pensionable age can be forced to draw his pension to pay his creditors.

Raithatha v. Williamson [2012] EWHC 909 (Ch)

Background

A bankruptcy order was made against Mr Raithatha on 9 November 2010. Mr Raithatha's trustee in bankruptcy applied for an income payments order (IPO) against Mr Raithatha's pension shortly before he was due to be discharged from bankruptcy. Mr Raithatha was then aged 59 and his pension scheme allowed him to draw a pension from age 55.

Pension scheme assets can rise and fall. So can liabilities. The timing of the section 75 debt calculation is, therefore, critically important to the ability of the scheme to meet its liabilities.

So when should trustees calculate their section 75 debt? Can they use one date to calculate scheme assets and choose a different date to calculate the cost of buying out the scheme’s liabilities?