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?  

Summary

This briefing looks at the “period of grace” provisions that can apply in some cases to the debts that arise on employers under section 75 of the Pensions Act 1995.
In a multi-employer scheme, if one employer ceases to employ any active members, a s75 debt can arise on that employer. The period of grace provisions allow the employer to serve a notice so that the debt is suspended, giving the employer a period (at least a year, but potentially up to three years if the trustees agree) in which to employ an active member.

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

On 18 December 2013, judgment of the High Court in England and Wales was handed down in a case relating to the insolvency of Lehman Brothers companies (In the Matters of Storm Funding Limited (In Administration) and Others [2013] EWHC 4019 (Ch)).

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').

Summary

On 24 July 2013, the Supreme Court handed down its long-awaited judgment in the Nortel/Lehman case: Re Nortel Companies [2013] UKSC 52. The Court looked at the position where a contribution notice (CN) or financial support direction (FSD) was issued by the Pensions Regulator (TPR) on a company that is already in insolvency proceedings in England (eg administration). How does the relevant obligation rank in the order of priority of payment?

Background

Under the Pensions Act 2004 the Pensions Regulator (tPR) has the power to impose a financial support direction (FSD) requiring a company “connected or associated” with the sponsoring employer of a UK pension fund to provide financial support to the pension fund. To date tPR has used the power in insolvencies.

The Court of Appeal’s decision in the matters of Nortel GMBH and Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (both in administration) and other companies has been overturned by the Supreme Court. Liabilities imposed on insolvent companies by the Pensions Regulator (“tPR”) will not be treated as an expense of the insolvency, which would be payable by the office holder in advance of making payment of his own remuneration or to floating charge holders. The liability will rank as an unsecured debt rateably with all other unsecured creditors.

Comment

The Supreme Court has handed down its highly anticipated judgment in the joint Nortel Networks/Lehman Brothers appeal.  The administrators of Nortel and Lehman Brothers entities had appealed against the Court of Appeal’s decision that Financial Support Directions (FSDs) issued by the Pensions Regulator (“the Regulator”) after the appointment of administrators attracted priority status as an administration expense.  Rejecting the decision of the lower courts, the Supreme Court ruled that an FSD issued during the course of an administration will rank as a provable debt rather than a