There has always been a tension between protecting the interests of defined benefit pension schemes and insolvency given on the one hand The Pensions Regulator (TPR) seeks to protect the interests of pension scheme members and the Pension Protection Fund and on the other, the insolvency regime seeks to protect the interests of creditors as a whole.

“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.

The Pension Protection Fund (PPF) is reviewing its insolvency risk model with Experian. The proposals being considered are particularly relevant to the financial services and charity sectors. It is proposed they be introduced from 2018/2019 (and will not be part of the draft levy rules and levy estimate for 2017/18, which we expect will contain few changes).

In summary, the PPF is considering:

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.

The Court of Appeal’s decision in the case of Heis v MF Global highlights the importance of documenting just who has responsibility for contributing to a defined benefit pension scheme.

EIS AND OTHERS V MF GLOBAL UK SERVICES LTD (IN ADMINISTRATION) [2016] EWCA CIV 569, [2016] ALL ER (D) 125 (JUN)

In April 2015, the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal bought by The Trustees of the Olympic Airlines SA Pension and Life Assurance Scheme ("the Scheme") and held that Olympic Airlines SA ("Olympic Airlines") did not have an "establishment" in the UK when the Trustees presented a winding up petition in England on 20 July 2010.

The significance of the decision is that without a "qualifying insolvency event", the Scheme would not enter the Pension Protection Fund ("PPF") and is of significance for any defined benefit pension scheme of a UK branch office of an overseas company.

The UK Pensions Regulator (the Regulator) has just announced that it has reached a settlement with the intended target of its first Contribution Notice (CN), with the result that the CN has been issued, but for a far lower amount than the Regulator originally sought. This case gives important guidance on the situations in which the Regulator believes it will be justified in issuing a CN, and on the potential liabilities targets may face.

The Moral Hazard Powers

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has ruled today that the Pension Protection Fund regime does not satisfy European law requirements. The judgment is likely to have a significant impact on the PPF, and could have wider knock-on effects for many occupational pension schemes.

Background to the case

Introduction:

The Government has launched a new consultation on a number of technical and regulatory changes affecting pensions legislation. One of the proposed changes is to amend the entry rules in relation to the Pension Protection Fund (PPF). The consultation follows on from the recent Supreme Court decision in Olympic Airlines and the introduction of specific legislation to ensure the beneficiaries of that particular scheme received protection in circumstances where the entry rules otherwise excluded them.

 Summary