Advertisement

We need your help now

Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.

You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.

If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.

Evdokimov Maxim via Shutterstock

Column The future for pensions? Lessons to be learned from high-profile case ...

A recent landmark ruling contains lessons that other pension scheme trustees and employers must learn from, writes Samantha McConnell.

THE NAME Element Six may not be as recognisable as Waterford Crystal or Aer Lingus, but the court ruling over its defined benefit pension scheme contains lessons that other pension scheme trustees and employers must learn from.

A subsidiary of the De Beers diamond group, Element Six’s parent company announced in 2009 the closure of its Shannon plant. However, after a restructuring process which resulted in the loss of approximately 300 jobs, the plant stayed open. The parent company subsequently released a statement committing itself to the long-term future of its operation at Shannon.

Element Six’s pension scheme also faced difficulties and in 2008 it had a funding deficit of €100 million. Following negotiations, it was agreed that the employer would make an annual contribution of €10 million for 12 years to address the shortfall. In the event, the funding proposal went off track and in 2010, the employer advised that funding the pension scheme was not sustainable because the company was in a difficult financial position.

In October 2011, the parent company formally notified the scheme trustees that it would cease the contributions and would offer a contribution of €35.4 million. During subsequent negotiations, the company told the trustees that if they demanded the full deficit, the company would be forced into liquidation with the loss of approximately 350 jobs.

Claims

In November 2011 the trustees decided to accept a final contribution of €37.1 million. The trustee board comprised three company trustees and three employee trustees and were split 50/50 in their decision. The chairman of the board, a company trustee and a director of the company, had the casting vote and voted in favour of accepting the offer.

Following this decision, the beneficiaries of the scheme took a case against the trustees, claiming that by accepting the €37.1 million offer, they breached the terms of the trust and by implication failed in their fiduciary duties by not demanding the full deficit of €129.2 million in October 2011.

The beneficiaries also claimed that some of the trustees were conflicted in their duties to the company and the scheme.

In his ruling Justice Peter Charleton said that it was not for the Court to decide what ought to have happened, but rather at whether what did happen was correct. The judge said that it was important to determine whether the trustees’ failure to demand the full contribution could be construed as a default and therefore a breach of trust, as the beneficiaries had claimed.

The judge noted that the trustees had taken legal and actuarial advice when the parent company had threatened closure and they also had received advice about what the scheme’s rights were if liquidation of the company occurred.

A number of lessons to be learned 

The judgment from the Element Six case means that there are a number of lessons to be learnt for both employers and pension scheme trustees.

Firstly, it appears that trustees must now take into account the wider implications of demanding the full deficit (ie danger of the company winding up) .

From a trustee’s perspective, accepting a lower contribution offer may be the ‘best worst’ option, but based on Judge Charleton’s ruling, it is also necessary for all pension scheme trustees to ensure that they receive adequate legal and financial advice and that they are fully informed of what rights and entitlements the scheme and its beneficiaries have in the event of a wind-up.

The Element Six ruling is a stark reminder for pension scheme trustees to ensure that they are meeting their fiduciary duty of care. It is worth noting that one of the case’s main considerations was whether or not the trustees engaged in wilful default by not serving a contribution demand on Element Six’s parent company.

Representing interests

In the context of the Element Six case, potential conflicts of interest were also raised. This, it was claimed, was because the board of trustees was divided equally between company nominees and worker nominees.

In the event, the casting vote for the trustees to accept a lower contribution offer came from the trustee chairman, who was also a company director.

It is understandable that the beneficiaries raised questions about whose interests the trustees represented and whether there were any conflicts that impacted on the decision-making process.

However, in his ruling, the judge noted that the trust deed contained an exemption clause which protected the trustees where conflicts existed. He confirmed that the exemption clause allowed trustees to hold conflicting positions and, provided the trustees were not overwhelmed by those conflicts, they could continue to act without seeking court approval. A properly drafted exemption clause is essential.

For other pension scheme trustees, this may well be the most valuable lesson to be learned.

Samantha McConnell, Chief Investment Officer, IFG Corporate Pensions

Follow Opinion & Insight on Twitter: @TJ_Opinions

Poll: Should people be able to choose what age they retire at?

Readers like you are keeping these stories free for everyone...
A mix of advertising and supporting contributions helps keep paywalls away from valuable information like this article. Over 5,000 readers like you have already stepped up and support us with a monthly payment or a once-off donation.

Close
8 Comments
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Aus Tereo
    Favourite Aus Tereo
    Report
    Apr 4th 2014, 8:25 AM

    The biggest lesson is never become a pension scheme trustee. No pay, no perks and plenty of work with the chance of ending up in court at the end of it. Not for me thanks!

    53
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Anthony Quinn
    Favourite Anthony Quinn
    Report
    Apr 4th 2014, 8:31 AM

    Nah..lesson is dont bother about a pension..be a running sore on the
    Social welfares books..youll be better off..

    52
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Paul Roche
    Favourite Paul Roche
    Report
    Apr 4th 2014, 8:41 AM

    For many this is their only option.

    25
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Jon Gripper McKee
    Favourite Jon Gripper McKee
    Report
    Apr 4th 2014, 9:00 AM

    Pensions are just stockbrokers and bankers ways of taking your money and gambling it. You’d be safer taking the money yourself and backing a horse in the bookies. Double 7 tomorrow in the National will do nicely..

    35
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Animal
    Favourite Animal
    Report
    Apr 4th 2014, 10:41 AM

    I’ll look out for that… Anymore good tips

    6
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Goldberg
    Favourite Goldberg
    Report
    Apr 4th 2014, 9:44 AM

    Don’t retire – keep working. It might be an idea though to give private sector workers some type of tax break given that they don’t have the gold plated pensions of the public sector to look forward to

    34
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Barry Vickers
    Favourite Barry Vickers
    Report
    Apr 4th 2014, 8:40 PM

    Great article!

    6
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute seamus mcdermott
    Favourite seamus mcdermott
    Report
    Apr 5th 2014, 11:13 AM

    If you steal someone’s pension, you are destroying their life.
    People take a dim view of such nonsense, regardless of what legal authorities declare.
    Eventually, they will raise the black flag and commence slitting throats.
    History has shown this to be true time and time again.

    5
Submit a report
Please help us understand how this comment violates our community guidelines.
Thank you for the feedback
Your feedback has been sent to our team for review.
JournalTv
News in 60 seconds