Independent Trustee Services Ltd (the trustee) was the sole trustee of the Ilford Pension Scheme (the Scheme), which was underfunded when the sponsoring employer went into administration in 2004. There was a proposal that the trustee should buy out certain benefits for members of the Scheme, for whom no Pension Protection Fund (PPF) compensation would be available, before the Scheme entered an assessment period.

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?

The Pension Schemes Bill [HL] 2019-20 (Bill) was re-introduced before Parliament on 7 January 2020. Among its proposed amendments to the Pensions Act 2004 (Act) are new criminal offences for failing to comply with a contribution notice, avoiding employer debt, conduct risking accrued scheme benefits, an expansion of the moral hazard powers and an extension of the ‘notifiable events’ framework. The Government’s stated intention is to “ensure that those who put pension schemes in jeopardy feel the full force of the law“.

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

In related Nortel and Lehman Brothers cases, the UK Supreme Court ruled in July that Financial Support Directions ("FSDs") and Contribution Notices ("CNs") under the Pensions Act 2004 rank as provable debts if issued against insolvent targets.

Overturning the decisions of Mr Justice Briggs and the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court has ruled that such FSD or CN liabilities are not administration or liquidation expenses. It has also confirmed that they do not rank behind other provable debts (the option which had become known as the 'black hole').

HIGHLIGHTS

The credit crunch caused problems for businesses at the same time as the value of pension scheme assets plunged, adding ballooning defined benefit pension deficits to the woes of struggling companies.

Company insolvencies, and attempts at restructuring to avoid insolvencies, can have a significant impact on the pension schemes sponsored by those companies. The pensions issues can also act as a significant obstacle to restructuring.

Proposals issued October 2010

Confirmation given 31 January 2011

Policy statement issued May 2011

Draft guidance on the bespoke measurement of investment risk issued May 2011. Consultation ends on 24 June 2011

Consultation on the 2012/13 levy determination expected in autumn 2011

The PPF has confirmed its intention to implement a new levy framework from 2012/13. Key features of the framework confirmed in the policy statement include:

On December 29, 2011, the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued an opinion in the chapter 11 bankruptcy case In re Nortel Networks, Inc., holding that the "automatic stay" on creditor collection actions outside the bankruptcy applied to prevent the UK Pension Protection Fund and the Trustee of the UK Nortel Pension Plan from participating in UK pensions proceedings initiated by the UK Pensions Regulator.

On 25 June 2020, the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill (the “Bill”) received Royal Assent and on 26 June 2020 CIGA came into force. The restructuring team in Mayer Brown’s London office has previously commented on the different elements of the Bill in a series of blog posts and podcasts.

The regulatory amendments drawn up by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions following the outcome in Trustees of Olympic Airlines SA Pension &Life Assurance Scheme v Olympic Airlines SA have been drafted narrowly and may end up protecting no one other than the beneficiaries of the Olympic Airlines pension scheme.

The issue