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)
Tata Steel Limited (Tata) has been intending to end their British operations for some time. As yet, it has been unable to do so as its subsidiary, Tata Steel UK (TSUK), is the principal employer of one of the UK’s largest defined benefit (DB) schemes. The obligations and liabilities under the British Steel Pension Scheme (BSPS) have been deemed by prospective buyers as too great to take on with the Scheme currently running at a deficit of approximately £700 million.
Insolvency practitioners (‘IP’s) tasked with dealing with an often failing business for the purposes of protecting creditors’ interests face a number of issues. The Regulator has sought to provide clarity in two particular areas that IPs come across in their work by issuing notes (the ‘Notes’) on these issues (September 2015).
Trustee Appointments
Help is at hand for insolvency practitioners (IPs) who need clarification on the Regulator’s views on scheme trustee appointments and statutory notices. The Pensions Regulator recently released a statement intended to assist IPs to understand these two areas which are of particular relevance to them.
TRUSTEES
The statement deals with scheme trustee appointments in four areas:
At the end of October the Pension Protection Fund announced that it had come to an agreement with Monarch Airlines and the Pensions Regulator to accept the Monarch Airlines Limited Retirement Benefit Scheme into a PPF assessment period. The agreement, reached after discussions between the parties and the Trustees of the Scheme will enable the airline to restructure its business and accept £125m in new capital and liquidity facilities from Greybull Capital LLP in return for a 90 per cent shareholding.
The Pensions Regulator has announced, following several years of proceedings and court skirmishes, that a compromise has been reached in relation to the Financial Support Directions (FSDs) issued under the Lehman Brothers UK pension scheme.
FSDs and the Lehmans case – a reminder
After six years of legal action and investigations, the Pensions Regulator (TPR) has agreed a £184 million settlement with PwC, administrators for the Lehman Brothers Group, which has secured members' benefits under the UK pension scheme. It also means the scheme will not go into the Pension Protection Fund (PPF).
Following the insolvency of the Lehman group in 2008, TPR began regulatory action in 2010 seeking the issue of a Financial Support Direction (FSD) to certain UK group companies. An FSD requires recipients to provide extra financial support to a scheme.
CASE SNAPSHOT
In the matter of the Nortel Companies, the UK Supreme Court found that pension liabilities attributed to a company that arose prior to the occurrence of an insolvency event were not entitled to priority treatment, even if the first demand for payment was only made after the insolvency event occurred.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The Pension Act
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, the Supreme Court handed down its long-awaited judgment in the Nortel/Lehman case on where a contribution notice (CN) or financial support direction (FSD) issued by the Pensions Regulator (TPR) on a company that is already in insolvency proceedings (eg administration) ranks in the order of priority of payment.