From the Message Board - 11 to 24 September

Posted by Brian Stevens on September 11, 2000 at 03:21:49:

I have just been made aware of the 'raid' being carried out by IBM. This type of action has to have an accountability with the so-called Board of Trustess who quite clearly have not been discharging their responsibilities in favour of the Pensioners - the 'Owners' of the funds. Their involvement must surely count for an abuse of the role 'trustee' with an option for members having a vested interest to be voted off the Board by the fund 'Owners'.

Posted by Pete Warren on September 11, 2000 at 07:39:50:

Unfortunately the trustees have been "silenced" by a requirement that all communication about the work of the trustees has to be directed through David Newman. I know some are unhappy about the action and I believe one has resigned because of it.

Posted by Nigel Foster on September 15, 2000 at 02:57:43:

Hi all. The Trustees in the June 2000 leaflet "It's your Pension" state one of their responsibilities to be the "safekeeping of the assets of The Plan". "The Plan" must surely mean one of (that is, each individually) C, N or M Plans as the singular is used, so the C-Plan assets must be protected as C-Plan assets, as must M-Plan assets be protected as M-Plan assets. Thus it would appear that the Trustees are neglecting their duties .... unless for for "Plan" they say they mean "Scheme" (to include all Plans - which is sophistry (but for completeness..)) in which case they are neglecting their duties "To act fairly towards all beneficiaries", as it cannot be fair to take funds from one set of beneficiaries to the exclusive advantage of another.

Thus it would appear to my simple mind that the Trustees are failing in at least one of their duties as defined by a publication from IBM UK Pensions Trust Limited.

Petard Hoist own by their? (re-arrange to suit)

Should we be writing to each Trustee to make this point? They do each have a personal responsibility and therefore a personal liability in this matter. I am sure they must be acting in good faith as the same document states that they must. A reminder may however be appropriate.

Posted by Pete Warren on 17 September 2000 at 17:04:27:

I don't think you will get a result. The situation is, according
to a statement by David Newman , the pension trust manager:-

"It is the Pension Fund Trustees policy that member communications are
routed through my team, so therefore I am responding on behalf of the 4
recipients to your note."

This was after I tried to contact the employee trustees.

Posted by Bryan Balfour on 20 September 2000 at 19:57:37:

> This type of action has to have an accountability with the so-called Board of Trustees who quite clearly have not been discharging their responsibilities in favour of the Pensioners - the 'Owners' of the funds.

I don't think, in law, we pensioners are the 'owners' of
It may be our pension but it's not our pension fund. It's owned by IBM (UK) Pensions Trust Ltd. We pensioners are not the shareholders of this company, IBM is. Consequently, the Board of Trustees have no obligation to discharge their responsibilities in favour of the Pensioners, but merely to ensure that the obligations of each plan in the fund are met.

Bryan

Posted by Pete Warren on 21 September 2000 at 07:48:41:

The fund IS considered to belong to the members. The trustees
are just what the name implies, the money is held in trust and
looked after by the trustees who are under a duty to care for
the money on behalf of the members.

Posted by Bryan Balfour on 24 September 2000 at 08:36:22:

: Unfortunately the trustees have been "silenced" by a requirement
: that all communication about the work of the trustees has to be
: directed through David Newman. I know some are unhappy about
: the action and I believe one has resigned because of it.

This is quite a worrying development. Surely we can communicate directly with the Member Elected Directors. They are, after all, our representatives on the Board of Trustees. How can they effectively represent us if they cannot communicate with us directly?

Perhaps we should look positively on this. For IBM to issue this directive we've clearly got them rattled. Hopefully it's only a matter of time before the press picks up on the issues being raise here and we can use this 'gagging of trustees' to infer that perhaps IBM HAS got something to hide!!

Posted by Bryan Balfour on 24 September 2000 at 09:30:27:

: The fund IS considered to belong to the members. The trustees
: are just what the name implies, the money is held in trust and
: looked after by the trustees who are under a duty to care for
: the money on behalf of the members.

I suspect it's not that simple in law. I'd love to be proved wrong on this but my understanding is that the fund is the major asset of IBM UK Pension Trust Ltd and under law is 'owned' by the shareholders of that company. This asset, however is ring-fenced by some rules dictating how these shareholders, through the administrators of this company, may administer this asset(presumably laid out in the Articles of Association for the company). The Trustees are not the administrators of this asset. Their role is to ensure that the administrators adhere 100% to the rules controlling this asset.

It bothers me somewhat when I read some of the messages here accusing the trustees of 'abusing their role' and the company of 'raiding' or 'robbing' the fund when there is no evidence whatsoever that this has happened. As far as I am aware no money has been taken out of the fund. Instead two things have happened, namely IBM has been taking a contributions holiday and some surplus from the C plan has been transferred to the M plan.

Under the 'rules' as they stand now I'm sure both the company and the administrators of the fund are acting lawfully.

I believe that we as an organisation (hopefully) should direct our energies at persuading the government, 'now that legislation governing how new private pension plans must be administered is in place, they now need to focus their attention on bring in line the rules governing the administration of old pension plans, with particular emphasis on the distribution of any surpluses in these plans'.

My case rests, M'lud.

Posted by Pete Warren on 24 September 2000 at 17:58:18:

Interesting that the rules (ie the rules of the trust) were changed AFTER the event. See some of the other postings.