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)).

On 24 July 2013, in BESTrustees v Kaupthing, Singer & Friedlander [2013] EWHC 2407 (Ch) the High Court ruled in favour of an underfunded scheme, whose insolvent sponsor hoped to offset £2m in payments against its outstanding debt.

Summary

The Supreme Court has today allowed an appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal (14 October 2011) which, in certain circumstances in an insolvency situation, would have accorded “super priority” to a financial support direction made by the Pensions Regulator.

If an employer is affected by an insolvency event the insolvency practitioner or official receiver is obliged to notify the trustees of the employer’s pension scheme, the Pensions Regulator, and the Pension Protection Fund of the fact of the insolvency event. Here, we provide an overview of the pensions issues arising from employer insolvency.

Gowling WLG's finance litigation experts bring you the latest on the cases and issues affecting the lending industry.

Uncrystallised pension pot remains protected following bankruptcy

The much awaited court decision on the status of Financial Support Directions (“FSDs”) and Contribution Notices (“CNs”) * issued by the Pensions Regulator against target companies after the commencement of English insolvency processes in respect of such targets was handed down by the court on Friday 10 December 2010. The reluctant decision of Mr Justice Briggs that FSDs and CNs in these circumstances were not provable debts but ranked as expenses of the insolvency process, taking precedence ahead of unsecured creditors, has caused dismay in the restructuring community.

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 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)

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.

On 24 July 2013, in BESTrustees v Kaupthing, Singer & Friedlander [2013] EWHC 2407 (Ch) the High Court ruled in favour of an underfunded scheme, whose insolvent sponsor hoped to offset £2m in payments against its outstanding debt.