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?  

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.

In the current market turmoil, several banking and insurance names have already had to be rescued by government-brokered packages. It is therefore timely to review what rights institutional investors have in the event of counterparty insolvency. Unfortunately, the picture is complicated, not just because the question of how pension fund investors can get their money back may have an international dimension, but also because governments keep moving the goalposts on the availability and adequacy of compensation schemes.

Where does the claim arise?

The US Court has approved a bankruptcy settlement under which a US-listed parent company is liable for the buy-out deficits in its UK subsidiary's pension schemes. Key to the court's considerations was the issue of Financial Support Directions (FSDs) by the UK Pensions Regulator against the US parent company.

The court decided that:

In Bridge Trustees Limited v Noel Penny, Judge Purle QC, sitting as an additional Judge of the High Court, held that the Court could use its inherent jurisdiction to permit an independent trustee to distribute surplus in a scheme that was winding-up. Under the Pensions Act 1995, an independent trustee is appointed to exercise powers otherwise conferred on the employer where an insolvency practitioner begins to act in relation to a company.

Gleave and others v The Board of the Pension Protection Fund [2008] EWHC 1099 (Ch)

The High Court ruled that calculations of employer debt by scheme actuaries cannot be challenged by insolvency practitioners unless there is evidence of fraud or error.

Two documents on winding up procedures have recently been released for consultation. The first is a joint statement by the Pensions Regulator, the Pension Protection Fund and the DWP in respect of the Financial Assistance Scheme on the regulation of schemes in wind up and in a PPF assessment period. The second is a set of good practice guidelines from the Pensions Regulator on avoiding delays in the winding up of schemes.

[2008] EWHC 1099 (Ch)

The High Court has ruled that calculations of employer debt by scheme actuaries cannot be challenged by insolvency practitioners unless there is evidence of fraud or error.

The credit crunch is biting ... your scheme's sponsoring employer is facing insolvency ... what can the trustees and advisors do before the insolvency to lay the foundations for a smooth Pension Protection Fund (PPF) assessment period?

What is a PPF assessment period?

The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act), a roughly $2 trillion coronavirus response bill signed into law yesterday, is intended to provide widespread emergency relief for Americans and the country’s economy. In addition to its benefits for individuals, the bill provides aid for small businesses, large corporations, hospitals and public health agencies, and state and local governments.