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.

Pension scheme assets can rise and fall. So can liabilities. The timing of the section 75 debt calculation is, therefore, critically important to the ability of the scheme to meet its liabilities.

So when should trustees calculate their section 75 debt? Can they use one date to calculate scheme assets and choose a different date to calculate the cost of buying out the scheme’s liabilities?

TPR settled its dispute with Michael Van de Wiele (VdW) in relation to its UK pension scheme and issued a Contribution Notice (CN) for £60,000. Although this is significantly less than the £21 million originally sought and the £5.08 million decided by the Determinations Panel, TPR says it is “business as usual” for the use of its statutory anti-avoidance powers. A settlement at this level might be viewed as a defeat for TPR and an indication that CNs are not a potent weapon to deal with the avoidance of employer debts. That view would be seriously misguided.

FSA has censured a firm in voluntary liquidation for failings in selling and promoting geared traded endowment policies. Integrity Financial Solutions provided and advised on the policies. FSA found the product information it produced was misleading, which may have led IFAs to advise customers to buy an unsuitable product. It also found the firm’s own sales arm did not record information on customers and could not evidence why the product was suitable. FSA would have recommended a £350,000 fine if the firm were not in liquidation.

Treasury has published two orders made under the Insolvency Act 1986 and the Banking Act 2009. The orders are:  

In Re A Company (injunction to restrain presentation of petition) [2020] EWHC 1406 (Ch), the Court held that it is able to take into account the likelihood of a change in the relevant law in deciding whether to restrain a winding up application from being brought.

The English Court of Appeal has recently decided that a corporation that held shares in a company remained a shareholder notwithstanding the shareholding company's dissolution.

BWE Estates Limited had two shareholders: an individual named David who held 75% of its shares and a company, Belvedere Limited, which held the remaining 25%. Although Belvedere was dissolved in 1996, it remained listed as a shareholder in BWE's share register.

In Evans v Jones the directors of a liquidated company sought to defend a claim brought by the liquidators that loan repayments were insolvent transactions by asserting that the company was balance-sheet solvent at the time of the transactions.  The directors based this claim on the company having contingent assets in the form of dividend payments (to the directors) that were later found to be unlawful. 

Reports have estimated that 1,300 UK law firms have been put at risk after Latvian insurer Balva was put into liquidation. Initially Latvian Board of Financial and Capital Market Commission (FCMC) insisted there was no cause for concern as all Balva’s insurance policies would remain effective and be transferred to its replacement underwriter, Berliner. However, when Berliner pulled the pin, declining to cover the Balva policies, panic hit the UK legal market. Berliner's exit was described by one broker as the “biggest hand grenade into [the] bottom end of the market for many years.”

In Raithatha v Williamson [2012] EWHC 090 Ch, the English High Court was asked to decide whether a bankrupt’s entitlement to a pension, which he had not yet elected to receive, should be subject to an order for income payment.