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

The Pensions Regulator has today issued a Statement on its power to issue financial support directions (“FSDs”) against companies after an insolvency event has occurred. The Statement follows longstanding concerns of insolvency practitioners, which have arisen from ongoing court proceedings brought by the Lehman Brothers and Nortel administrators.

Background

On 26 July, the Pensions Regulator (TPR) published a statment on financial support directions (FSDs) and insolvency, with the aim of helping 'the pensions and insolvency industries understand TPR's approach in relation to financial suppirt directions in insolvency situations.'

The Court of Appeal decision in the Nortel case upheld the High Court ruling that FSD/CN liability is an expense of the administration and therefore ranks ahead of administrators' remuneration, floating charges and unsecured creditors. Much of the press coverage which has followed in the immediate aftermath seems to have assumed that the decision is a victory for "good" pensioners over the "bad" banks.

The Pensions Regulator (TPR) has announced that it has withdrawn moral hazard proceedings against Chemtura Manufacturing UK Limited and its US parent, Chemtura Corporation. This follows an agreement being reached by Chemtura with the trustees of the Great Lakes UK Limited Pension Plan (the Plan) over its funding package.

Third parties associated with an employer may find themselves liable to contribute to the employer's occupational pension scheme.

The Pensions Regulator (TPR) has issued a statement on Regulated Apportionment Arrangements (RAAs) and employer insolvency.

Employers of multi-employer schemes can use a number of mechanisms under the Employer Debt Regulations 2005 to manage a debt triggered under section 75 of the Pensions Act 1995. Broadly, RAAs can be used in situations where a scheme has entered into a Pension Protection Fund (PPF) assessment period, or is likely to enter into such an assessment period. TPR must approve an RAA.

DWP consults on amendments to the employer-debt regulations

The Pensions Regulator (the Regulator) recently used its powers under the Pensions Act 1995 to appoint an independent trustee to the exclusion of all other trustees of the scheme. The employer was required to pay the fees and expenses relating to the appointment.

The Regulator decided to use its powers because:

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?