In recent years, few topics seem to have risen so regularly to the top of the pensions “hot topics” pile as that of the employer covenant. And rightly so, you might reasonably think. But despite Regulatory guidance, do pension scheme trustees and employers actually feel confident that they know just how often their covenant should be reviewed, by whom or to what level of detail? I’m not sure. (more…)
Archive for the ‘The Pensions Regulator’ Category
The Pensions Regulator and the need for employer covenant reviews
Friday, 23 July 2010The Pensions Regulator issues its first contribution notice
Monday, 5 July 2010The referee cracks down on obvious fouls
Over five years after the introduction of its so-called moral hazard powers, the Pensions Regulator has issued its first contribution notice. Michel Van De Wiele N.V. – the Belgian parent company of insolvent UK subsidiary Bonas UK Limited – has been ordered to pay £5.089 million into the Bonas Group Pension Scheme. This amount would take the scheme to a position of solvency on the PPF funding basis, so avoiding a call on the PPF. This tour de force by the Regulator may suggest a change of tack and new willingness to embrace its powers. To my mind, however, this shows that whilst the Regulator may prefer intervening behind the scenes to exercising its powers, it is not afraid to blow the whistle where there is an obvious foul. (more…)
Penalties for poor records: a necessary evil or overkill?
Thursday, 11 March 2010The Pensions Regulator has kicked up a gear with proposals to stamp down on poor record keeping (see the Regulator’s February 2010 consultation paper on record-keeping, and here’s a good summary). Having spent time poring over the detail, I find myself torn on whether this is a good thing or not. Wouldn’t the world be a better place if all trustees had all the data they needed to pay benefits now and in the future and if records actually reflected people’s rights? But is it actually possible? And if it isn’t, does that mean that the world is wrong or the target is wrong? (more…)
Are ETVs such a bad thing?
Thursday, 10 December 2009
We at Allen & Overy are very pleased to have hosted the NAPF’s annual trustee conference today – themed “a brighter future”.
One discussion I had over lunch was with a trustee whose employer was just about to send information out to deferred members of the scheme on an enhanced transfer value (ETV) exercise. A huge amount of effort had obviously been put in by all parties (trustees, employer and advisers) into understanding and dealing with any risks involved. He was quite confident that the offer was going to be put to deferred members in a very balanced way, so that they could make the choice that was appropriate for them.
Clearance: does exactly what it says on the tin
Monday, 30 November 2009Thanks to the well-known advertising slogan, regardless of our usual aptitude for domestic DIY, when it comes to buying a particular brand of British wood dye preservative we’re well trained in where to look so as to manage our expectations as to the product’s scope and limitations.
In my experience, the same is not always true for pension scheme trustees and employers, whose expectations of clearance statements from the Pensions Regulator can go far beyond what it says on the tin (that’s to say, the underlying law and guidance).
