There was a magical place that’s now in administration. It’s called ‘Toys R Us’, Toys R Us’, Toys R Us’.

The Pension Protection Fund (PPF) published new forms of contingent asset agreements in January along with new contingent asset guidance. It follows its publication of a final determination and levy policy statement in December for the levy year 2018/29.

Background

The rules on contingent assets are broadly as for last year but there are developments to note. Recertification can take longer than expected if there have been changes in relation to an asset.

Trustees and sponsors should be preparing for the recertification of contingent assets that are to remain in place with a view to levy advantage for the 2018/19 year. If there have been changes in relation to a contingent asset, recertification may take materially longer than otherwise.

Costello J in the High Court recently gave judgment in the case of In re James Coady (a Former Bankrupt) [2017] IEHC 653. In this case the Official Assignee ("OA") had sought directions in respect of what rights could vest in the OA from the bankrupt's pre-retirement personal pension policy (the "PP"). The bankrupt had reached normal retirement age under the PP after he was adjudicated bankrupt but before he was discharged from bankruptcy.

5 What will happen if a Type A event occurs? If a Type A event occurs without appropriate steps being taken there can be a number of consequences. (i) Impact on relationship with pension scheme trustees Pension schemes have long term liabilities. Sponsoring employers therefore generally expect to have a long term relationship with the trustees of their scheme. That relationship could be damaged if a Type A event occurs and the trustees are not kept informed or if they consider that their concerns about such events have not been addressed.

“There’s a magical place, we’re on our way there, with toys in their millions, all under one roof – it’s called… Toys R Us!”

The lyrics resonate with millions worldwide. The advert is as iconic as Coca Cola’s “Holidays Are Coming” commercial or the Sainsbury’s “Christmas is for sharing” World War 1 cinematic ad. Sadly, there is no longer a magical place aura emanating from the retail giant, but a sobering reality that its financial disarray may lead to the company’s demise.

In Crowden and Crowden v QBE Insurance (Europe) Ltd[2017] EWHC 2597 (Comm) the Commercial Court found in favour of the Defendant insurer on the disputed construction of an "insolvency" exclusion in a professional indemnity insurance policy.  The case is a useful reminder of the approach which the English Courts take to the construction of exclusions in insurance contracts.  

1. Background

It is now clear that the Pensions Regulator will take a much tougher approach in future towards employers and scheme funding. The new approach comes after a select committee of MPs looking into the BHS collapse criticised the Regulator for being reactive, slow-moving and reluctant to exercise its powers.

The two key areas where we expect the Regulator to be more aggressive are scheme funding and "moral hazard" powers.

Remuneration schemes involving Employee Benefit Trusts (EBTs) have become more prevalent over the last 20 years, often as a way of seeking to remunerate key employees without making pay as you earn or national insurance contributions. Given the developments highlighted below, insolvency practitioners are advised to investigate such schemes in matters coming across their desks to see whether funds can be clawed back for the benefit of creditors.

HM Revenue and Customs’ opinion on EBT schemes

The Employment Appeal Tribunal has recently made some significant decisions which have increased the value of payments to be made to employees, including in insolvency situations. Below, we highlight the key facts you need to know.

(1) Additional elements to be included when calculating holiday pay