High Court Strengthens The Pension Regulator's Powers But Threatens UK Rescue Culture

Bloom and others v Pensions Regulator (Nortel, Re) [2010] EWHC 3010 (Ch) (10 December 2010)

The High Court recently considered the UK Pension Regulator's (the Regulator) powers against companies that have gone into administration or liquidation. In a landmark decision, the Court held that the cost of complying with a financial support direction issued by the Regulator would be an expense of the administration or liquidation, which in turn means that such costs are payable in priority to unsecured creditors, floating charge holders or indeed the administrator's own remuneration.

The multi-billion pound dispute involved the Regulator and the two estates of Lehman Brothers and Nortel Networks groups. Between the insolvents, there are significant employer debts owed to the pension schemes (£2.1 billion in the case of Nortel) and so the Pensions Regulator intervened to exercise its anti-avoidance powers as provided under the Pensions Act 2004 (PA 2004).

Under that legislation, the Regulator can issue "financial support directions" (FSD) if an employer participating in an occupational pension scheme is "insufficiently resourced". The financial support direction can require another group company – not necessarily participating in the pension scheme itself – to provide Regulator-approved financial support to further the obligations owed to its pension scheme. If the company fails to put forward satisfactory support mechanisms in response to an FSD, the Regulator can then issue a contribution notice (CN) against the company. This requires the company to make a monetary contribution to the pension scheme's assets (section 47 PA 2004) and such payment becomes a debt due from the company to the pension scheme trustees.

Earlier this year, the Regulator's Determinations Panel decided to impose FSDs against various companies in the Nortel and Lehman Brothers groups. The administrators accordingly sought directions from the Court as to the effect of an FSD. The Regulator, the Pension Protection Fund (PPF) and the Lehmans and Nortel trustees were all joined as respondents to the application. The PPF was joined as both the Lehmans and Nortel schemes are currently in PPF assessment periods.

The administrators asked whether liabilities under FSDs (including under any subsequent CNs) were provable debts in an administration of a company or, if not, how such liabilities would rank against other liabilities in a distribution of the company's assets. The Court...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT