Pensions and insolvency legislation uses the test in the Insolvency Act 1986 for assessing whether a person is ‘connected’ or ‘associated’ with another. This test is important because various statutory provisions use it, especially in limiting the persons whom the Pensions Regulator can make responsible for pension scheme deficits under the ‘moral hazard’ powers in the Pensions Act 2004. This briefing gives an outline of the statutory provisions and points to some difficult areas.  

Why is this relevant?  

Gleave and others v The Board of the Pension Protection Fund [2008] EWHC 1099 (Ch)

The High Court ruled that calculations of employer debt by scheme actuaries cannot be challenged by insolvency practitioners unless there is evidence of fraud or error.

Two documents on winding up procedures have recently been released for consultation. The first is a joint statement by the Pensions Regulator, the Pension Protection Fund and the DWP in respect of the Financial Assistance Scheme on the regulation of schemes in wind up and in a PPF assessment period. The second is a set of good practice guidelines from the Pensions Regulator on avoiding delays in the winding up of schemes.

[2008] EWHC 1099 (Ch)

The High Court has ruled that calculations of employer debt by scheme actuaries cannot be challenged by insolvency practitioners unless there is evidence of fraud or error.

The credit crunch is biting ... your scheme's sponsoring employer is facing insolvency ... what can the trustees and advisors do before the insolvency to lay the foundations for a smooth Pension Protection Fund (PPF) assessment period?

What is a PPF assessment period?

Ohio-based, 102-year-old automobile parts manufacturer Dana Corporation and 40 of its subsidiaries filed for chapter 11 protection in the U.S. in March 2006. Dana’s operations, however, extend well beyond the borders of the U.S. — the company has 46,000 employees in 28 countries. Integrating a complex restructuring of Dana’s U.S. operations in chapter 11 with Dana’s extensive operations and obligations abroad has posed some unique challenges to Jones Day’s restructuring professionals.

A landmark ruling has paved the way for companies to restructure without necessarily making their pension scheme ineligible for the Pension Protection Fund (PPF). Trustees in the case of L v M sought the court’s support (and that of the Pensions Regulator) for a plan to prevent the insolvency of the sponsoring employer which would result in an apportionment of the debt due to the scheme from the employers, the winding up of the scheme and would take the scheme into the PPF.

The Pension Protection Fund (“PPF”) has updated its approach to employer restructuring guidance and its general guidance for restructuring and insolvency professionals. These documents set out certain criteria that should be met when making proposals to the PPF in respect of a sponsoring employer suffering an insolvency event.

1. The PPF Approach to Employer Restructuring:

This is an extract from Financier Worldwide's August online publication entitled "Pension challenges in bankruptcy and restructuring processes."

REFLECTING ON THE LAST FEW YEARS, HOW WOULD YOU DESCRIBE OVERALL PENSION CHALLENGES ARISING FOR COMPANIES FACING BANKRUPTCY / INSOLVENCY AND RESTRUCTURING PROCESS? WHAT MAJOR TRENDS HAVE DEFINED THIS SPACE?

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).