In March the Government announced new pension reforms. From April 2015 pensioners reaching 55 years will be entitled to draw down their entire pension pot, to do with as they wish. Pensions minister Steve Webb was famously quoted as saying that pensioners should be able to “buy a Lamborghini” with their pension pot if they so wish. And if pensioners subsequently ran out of money, well, they would have the state pension to fall back on, after all. 

Pension deficits are by no means the only concern for charities, but they present a severe headache.

There are over 180,000 charities registered in England and Wales, employing around 2,660,000. 
Between them, the Charities Commission has reported a combined pensions deficit of over £3.4 billion. For some charities, the burden of meeting that deficit puts too much of a strain on already stretched resources. 

Earlier this year, the Pension Protection Fund (PPF) published its consultation on the second PPF Levy Triennium (2015/16 to 2017/18) which proposed wholesale changes to the measure of insolvency risk and significant changes in respect of contingent assets and the PPF’s treatment of asset-backed contributions. 

As we await the outcome of the consultation, employers and trustees may find a summary of the proposals helpful in trying to gauge how they could impact their scheme’s PPF levy. 

The PPF-specific insolvency risk model

The PPF is going ahead with the new insolvency scoring system developed by Experian.

It is also raising its requirements for contingent asset guarantees.

New legislation came in to force on 21 July 2014 with the intention of granting entry to the Pension Protection Fund (the “PPF”) for those members of the Olympic Airlines SA Pension and Life Assurance Scheme (the “Scheme”). The members of the Scheme had previously been denied entry as a result of a Court of Appeal decision in the case of the Trustees of the Olympic Airlines SA Pension and Life Assurance Scheme v Olympic Airlines SA.

In the November 2013 edition of Pensions Pieces we referred to the Olympic Airlines case where a UK pension scheme could not qualify for entry to the Pension Protection Fund ('the PPF') because its sponsoring employer was suffering main liquidation proceedings in Greece, and further insolvency proceedings could not be established to satisfy the current entry conditions

The Pensions Regulator has announced, following several years of proceedings and court skirmishes, that a compromise has been reached in relation to the Financial Support Directions (FSDs) issued under the Lehman Brothers UK pension scheme.

FSDs and the Lehmans case – a reminder

Again, of interest to all schemes providing defined benefits is the recent settlement in the litigation involving the Lehman Brothers Scheme, where the payment of £184 million, representing costs of the buying-out benefits, has been agreed.

Following a detailed investigation by TPR commencing in 2008, and a legal battle through the hierarchy of courts up to the Supreme Court (SC), members of the Lehman Brothers Pension Scheme will receive their full benefits after a settlement was reached on 18 August 2014.

After six years of legal action and investigations, the Pensions Regulator (TPR) has agreed a £184 million settlement with PwC, administrators for the Lehman Brothers Group, which has secured members' benefits under the UK pension scheme.  It also means the scheme will not go into the Pension Protection Fund (PPF).

Following the insolvency of the Lehman group in 2008, TPR began regulatory action in 2010 seeking the issue of a Financial Support Direction (FSD) to certain UK group companies.  An FSD requires recipients to provide extra financial support to a scheme.

The regulatory amendments drawn up by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions following the outcome in Trustees of Olympic Airlines SA Pension & Life Assurance Scheme v Olympic Airlines SA have been drafted narrowly and may end up  protecting no one other than the beneficiaries of the Olympic Airlines pension scheme. 

The issue