The DWP is consulting on new powers for The Pensions Regulator (TPR). The consultation covers:

In the wake of the Carillion insolvency and the Toys R Us administration, there are contrasting tales from two different UK businesses.

The engineering business Rolls-Royce is going against the trend and has announced that it will keep its defined benefits pension scheme open for current members until January 2024.

The scheme is running at a £1.4 billion surplus, which will also allow the company to decrease its contributions to its defined benefit retirement fund by £145 million over the next three years.

It is now clear that the Pensions Regulator will take a much tougher approach in future towards employers and scheme funding. The new approach comes after a select committee of MPs looking into the BHS collapse criticised the Regulator for being reactive, slow-moving and reluctant to exercise its powers.

The two key areas where we expect the Regulator to be more aggressive are scheme funding and "moral hazard" powers.

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.

What role does The Pensions Regulator have when pension schemes need protecting? In episode seven of Pensions in 30 Podcasts, we look further into contribution notices and financial support directions and when they can be brought into play.

Click here to listen to the podcast.

Key Points

Welcome to the latest edition of DLA Piper’s monthly newsletter – Pensions Round-Up – in which we provide an overview of developments in pension legislation, case law and regulatory guidance. In this edition we look at key developments from October 2016 including the following. ■ The Pensions Regulator: the publication of reports which look at cases concerning the power to declare scheme amendments void, failures to complete the scheme return, and the potential use of the Regulator’s anti-avoidance powers.

In a much-awaited judgment, the UK Supreme Court has decided that the liability of a company in administration or liquidation to contribute to an under-funded pension fund following a Financial Support Direction or a Contribution Notice is a provable debt ranking equally with other unsecured creditors. Crucially, it is not an expense of the administration or liquidation which would cause it to rank ahead of all creditors (except fixed charge holders) and even the administrator's or liquidator's own remuneration.

Summary

On 26 July 2012, the Pensions Regulator (the 'Regulator') issued a statement on financial support directions (FSDs) with the intention of providing further guidance and comfort with regard to the circumstances in which it will issue an FSD after a company has been placed into administration.

The Court of Appeal in England has unanimously upheld a first instance decision that a Financial Support Direction (FSD) issued by the Pensions Regulator to an entity after it has commenced insolvency proceedings will rank as an expense of the administration, therefore affording it superpriority over floating charge holders and other unsecured creditors. This decision has significant implications for lenders to groups with UK defined benefit pension plans if any of their security is taken as a floating charge.

The Court of Appeal has confirmed that the costs of complying with Financial Support Directions (“FSDs”) proposed to be issued to certain Nortel and Lehman companies by the Pensions Regulator (“TPR”) qualify as “super priority” administration expenses, payable in priority to unsecured creditors, floating charge holders and the administrators’ own fees.

The question