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.

BACKGROUND

Halcrow Group Limited (HGL) and Halcrow Water Services Limited (together Halcrow), two subsidiaries of Halcrow Holdings Limited (HHL), were the sponsoring employers with legal responsibility for funding the Halcrow Pension Scheme (HPS).

MPs' Report on the financial collapse of BHS: what are the key pensions implications?

MPs have published a report on the events leading to the financial collapse of BHS shortly after its sale by Sir Philip Green. As a consequence of BHS's insolvency, its defined benefit pension schemes will enter the PPF.

The Court of Appeal’s decision in the case of Heis v MF Global highlights the importance of documenting just who has responsibility for contributing to a defined benefit pension scheme.

EIS AND OTHERS V MF GLOBAL UK SERVICES LTD (IN ADMINISTRATION) [2016] EWCA CIV 569, [2016] ALL ER (D) 125 (JUN)

Over the past few months, we have commented on the steel industry crisis and some of the employment law issues arising from it in the context of insolvency.

The Court of Appeal has now confirmed that a bankrupt’s undrawn pension entitlement does not fall to be included within the assessment of his income “to which he from time to time becomes entitled” for the purposes of an income payments order application (IPO) pursuant to section 310 of the Insolvency Act IA86. Horton v Henry [2016] EWCA Civ 989.

Unless you have been hiding in an igloo in Antarctica for the last year you could not possibly have missed the media furore over the huge pension liabilities of eminent companies that have become insolvent. BHS, a venerable British retailer, is the most high profile after recently entering administration with an estimated pensions deficit of £571m.

The actuary is not required to consider the security of benefits where a bulk transfer without member consents is proposed, the Court has decided.

A transfer without consent cannot be made unless the actuary certifies that, in their opinion, the past service rights each member will be credited with in the receiving scheme will be "broadly no less favourable" than their rights in the transferring scheme.

Key points

• There have been conflicting decisions on whether a person may be made the subject of any income payments order (IPO)
• This case suggests that the court will not make an IPO in respect of unelected pension entitlements

The facts

Tata Steel Limited (Tata) has been intending to end their British operations for some time. As yet, it has been unable to do so as its subsidiary, Tata Steel UK (TSUK), is the principal employer of one of the UK’s largest defined benefit (DB) schemes. The obligations and liabilities under the British Steel Pension Scheme (BSPS) have been deemed by prospective buyers as too great to take on with the Scheme currently running at a deficit of approximately £700 million.