Section 75 of the Pensions Act 1995 has the potential to mean that, as a result of corporate restructuring (including on employee and TUPE transfers), an employer that participates in a defined benefit occupational pension scheme could have to make a one-off payment (a debt) to the scheme. The debt reflects the difference between the scheme funds that are available and the estimated cost of securing all scheme benefits in the form of annuity policies.
Last week, our post “You Can’t Always Get What You Want” discussed a Texas bankruptcy court decision rejecting efforts by debtor Sam Wyly to claim as exempt a number of offshore private annuities.
(7th Cir. July 26, 2016)
The Seventh Circuit interprets a Wisconsin exemption statute applicable to annuity contracts. The statute provides that such a contract is exempt from assets available to creditors so long as it “complies with the provisions of the internal revenue code.” The trustee argued for a narrow interpretation of this language, while the Court ultimately agrees with the broader interpretation of the statute employed by Wisconsin bankruptcy courts. Opinion below.
Judge: Hamilton
Attorney for Debtors: Dewitt Ross & Stevens S.C., Craig E. Stevenson
The bankruptcy courts have a long history of being willing to use their judicial power under the Bankruptcy Code to prevent perceived efforts by debtors to inappropriately shield their assets from creditors. This is true even when the debtors employ structures and devices that are complex and crafted in seeming compliance with applicable law.
The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey has issued a published opinion authorizing a trustee’s transfer of structured settlement payments pursuant to the New Jersey Structured Settlement Protection Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:16-63, et seq. (NJ SSPA). In In Re Jackus, 2011 WL 118216 (Bankr. N.J. Jan. 14, 2011), the Bankruptcy Court held that, inter alia, the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to authorize the transfer under the NJ SSPA, and the transfer was in the “best interest” of the bankruptcy estate and its creditors.
We write to provide an important update concerning Executive Life Insurance Company of New York (“ELNY”).
Executive Life Insurance Company of New York (ELNY) was placed into rehabilitation in 1991 after affiliated companies became insolvent and concerns about its future solvency arose. The rehabilitation plan adopted in 1992 involved the transfer of much of ELNY's business to another carrier; however, ELNY in rehabilitation retained substantial assets and continued payment on certain annuities, with the bulk of the payout going to structured settlement annuitants that had received long-term and/or lifetime annuities as settlements in personal injury lawsuits.
The bankruptcy courts have a long history of being willing to use their judicial power under the Bankruptcy Code to prevent perceived efforts by debtors to inappropriately shield their assets from creditors. This is true even when the debtors employ structures and devices that are complex and crafted in seeming compliance with applicable law.
Last week, our post “You Can’t Always Get What You Want” discussed a Texas bankruptcy court decision rejecting efforts by debtor Sam Wyly to claim as exempt a number of offshore private annuities.
(7th Cir. July 26, 2016)
The Seventh Circuit interprets a Wisconsin exemption statute applicable to annuity contracts. The statute provides that such a contract is exempt from assets available to creditors so long as it “complies with the provisions of the internal revenue code.” The trustee argued for a narrow interpretation of this language, while the Court ultimately agrees with the broader interpretation of the statute employed by Wisconsin bankruptcy courts. Opinion below.
Judge: Hamilton
Attorney for Debtors: Dewitt Ross & Stevens S.C., Craig E. Stevenson