THIS PRACTICE NOTE APPLIES ONLY TO OCCUPATIONAL PENSION SCHEMES Disclosure requirements applicable to a winding-up scheme When a scheme begins winding-up, trustees of an occupational pension scheme must prepare a winding-up procedure and disclose it to the Pensions Regulator (the Regulator) and others. For more information, see Disclosure of winding-up procedure, below. The trustees also have a statutory obligation to disclose information to scheme members and beneficiaries: • once winding-up begins, and • on discharging scheme liabilities for particular individuals The statutory disclosure requirements applicable before 6 April 2014 could be found in the Occupational Pension Schemes (Disclosure) Regulations 1996, SI 1996/1655, which have now been repealed. They are now set out in the Occupation and Personal Pension Schemes (Disclosure) Regulations 2013, SI 2013/2734. For more information on the winding-up disclosure requirements applicable on or after 6 April 2014, see Practice Note: Disclosure requirements applicable to occupational and personal pension schemes on and from 6 April 2014. It is important for trustees to comply

THIS PRACTICE NOTE APPLIES ONLY TO OCCUPATIONAL PENSION SCHEMES Notifying the Pensions Regulator of the winding-up As part of their ordinary duty to provide and maintain registrable information on the Pensions Regulator (TPR)’s scheme register, trustees must inform TPR as soon as reasonably practicable of: • the date on which any winding-up commences, and • the completion of any winding-up Trustees must do so through Exchange (TPR's online information service). Failure to inform or update TPR can lead to financial penalties against the trustees. For further information, see Practice Note: Pension scheme reporting requirements—The duty to provide and maintain registrable information on the Pensions Regulator’s scheme register. Disclosure requirements applicable to a winding-up scheme When a scheme begins winding-up, the trustees of an occupational pension scheme will generally prepare a winding-up procedure and disclose it to TPR and others. For further information, see Disclosure of winding-up procedure below. The trustees also have a statutory obligation to disclose information to scheme members and beneficiaries: • once winding-up

A lump sum benefit paid to a member of an occupational pension scheme because the scheme is being wound up and their accrued benefits under the scheme are deemed 'trivial'. This lump sum must meet the conditions of the Finance Act 2004, Sch 29, para 10. A member of a scheme that is winding-up may commute their benefits under that scheme on the grounds of triviality as a winding-up lump sum. Unlike a trivial commutation lump sum, there is no minimum age before the benefits can be commuted into a winding-up lump sum.

A lump sum benefit paid to a dependant of a member of an occupational pension scheme because the scheme is being wound-up and their accrued benefits under the scheme are deemed ‘trivial’, and which meets the conditions of paragraph 21, Schedule 29 to the Finance Act 2004.

The formal court document by which one seeks the compulsory winding up of a company.

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: The High Court dismissed a winding-up petition on the basis that the petition debt was subject to a genuine and substantial dispute. The case serves as a warning to creditors that insolvency proceedings are not an appropriate forum for resolving contractual disputes. The facts underlying the decision also highlight the critical role of precise drafting in loan agreements, particularly as to repayment terms. Written by Helen Martin, managing associate at Stevens & Bolton LLP.

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: The overarching question for the court to consider was whether, on the evidence, the debt upon which the petition was founded was substantially disputed in good faith by the respondent, ie, whether the respondent had a rational prospect of success in disputing the petition debt. In doing so, the case provides a useful reminder of the principles the court adopts when considering whether to make a winding-up order, as exemplified in cases such as Angel Group Ltd v British Gas Trading Ltd. The subject matter of the debt was an alleged liability under a letter of credit. The court in considering the dispute sets out a useful summary of the legal and commercial context in which letters of credit are agreed and issued under the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits. Written by Gabrielle Ruiz, knowledge director and Dilara Topcu, trainee solicitor at Clifford Chance LLP.

The order in which members’ benefits are distributed on the winding up of a defined benefit scheme with an insolvent employer and a funding shortfall.

CASE HUB (Appeals lodged at the General Court in Cases T- 256/12 (Hautau), T- 248/12 (Fuhr), T- 252/12 (Gretsch-Unitas), T- 292/12 (Alban) and T- 257/12 (Siegenia-Aubi) ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 28/02/2012; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline Case facts Outline European Commission investigation into price fixing for window mountings (case number COMP/39.452) Latest developments On 28 March 2012, the Commission

IP analysis: UK importers take note—the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court has upheld an artist's claim that a label on wine bottles imported into and sold in the UK by a UK company infringed copyright in an original work and amounted to passing off. The Argentinian supplier had arranged for a designer to produce a suitable design for the label and the importer did not question its choice. Of the three labels around which the allegations centred, the court held that one was ‘very clearly a substantial reproduction’ of the artist's work—even though it represented only a very small part of the original (Infopaq International A/S followed). It was irrelevant that the director of the UK importer was unaware of the issue until the artist herself complained, highlighting the risk that comes with strict liability torts such as the statutory tort of copyright infringement and the common law tort of passing off. Written by Aaron Cole, counsel, and Patricia Wade, expertise counsel, Ashurst LLP.

MLex: Wireless Connect Ltd, an Irish internet service provider, has asked the EU General Court to annul a decision from the European Commission, which last year found the Irish National Broadband Plan to be compatible with the EU rules on state aid. The company says that the Plan covers areas that it already services, therefore it should not have been considered eligible for public intervention.

A form of network used to connect computers and computer hardware together without cables.