Since the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999 (“1999 Act”), it has been understood that the rights of a bankrupt under a tax approved pension plan are excluded from the bankruptcy estate and do not vest in his Trustee in Bankruptcy.
That said, where a Bankrupt was already drawing an income from his pension, his Trustee could seek an Income Payments Order over that income.
Many schemes will see a sharp increase in their levy next year as a result of the PPF’s new and more discriminative insolvency scoring system.
To give you an idea, the PPF expects:
Introduction
The Chancellor’s 2014 Budget speech revealed significant changes to the way in which pension scheme members will be able to access their savings. This move falls as just one of a raft of changes to workplace pensions which Steve Webb MP has described as a “pensions revolution”.
Pension Protection Fund: valuation assumptions
The PPF has consulted on changing the assumptions used for section 143 valuations (used for schemes in assessment periods) and section 179 valuations (used when setting a scheme's risk-based levy). The PPF expects that the proposed changes would increase section 143 and section 179 liabilities by just under 4% and would potentially lead to a small increase in the number of schemes transferring to the PPF.
Pension Protection Fund: insolvency risk provider
The PPF Ombudsman has rejected an appeal by a pension scheme member which was based on the premise that the PPF compensation cap contravened European law (in this case the Insolvency Directive). The Insolvency Directive requires member states to take "necessary measures" to ensure protection of members' occupational retirement benefits upon the insolvency of an employer.
The Court of Appeal has ruled that the trustees of two occupational defined benefit (DB) schemes can use a particular mechanism, known as a Headway agreement, to maximise the amount of s.75 debt payable by the employers.
In the case of Sarjeant and others v Rigid Group Ltd, both schemes commenced winding up in 2000. No insolvency event had occurred before the winding up in either case. The applicable legislation at the relevant time required the s.75 debt to be calculated on the MFR basis.
CASE SNAPSHOT
In the matter of the Nortel Companies, the UK Supreme Court found that pension liabilities attributed to a company that arose prior to the occurrence of an insolvency event were not entitled to priority treatment, even if the first demand for payment was only made after the insolvency event occurred.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The Pension Act
Summary
On 18 December 2013, judgment of the High Court in England and Wales was handed down in a case relating to the insolvency of Lehman Brothers companies (In the Matters of Storm Funding Limited (In Administration) and Others [2013] EWHC 4019 (Ch)).
On 17 September, TPR updated its trustee toolkit to include a new learning module: ‘Winding up a DB scheme, insolvent employer: wind-up or transfer to PPF’. The module, now available to download, covers DB scheme closures where the employer is insolvent.
On 24 July 2013, the Supreme Court handed down its long-awaited judgment in the Nortel/Lehman case on where a contribution notice (CN) or financial support direction (FSD) issued by the Pensions Regulator (TPR) on a company that is already in insolvency proceedings (eg administration) ranks in the order of priority of payment.