Archive 6 of IBM UK's radical downgrade :  AMIPP Forums (Message Boards) The fastest message board... ever.
of its pension provision. YOU CAN NO LONGER POST HERE! This is now an archive 
Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement.
Posted by: ImGone (IP Logged)
Date: 19 February 2014 02:05PM

Yes - you are right - it is my terminology that is imprecise - I used the word "closed" when, more correctly , it should have been "terminated" - so should have read....

"It transpires from statements from the current High Court Case that IBM were keen to NOT terminate the DB Plan (which as Dave says, the rules say they could have done).

This suggests to me that IBM are keen to keep the DB Scheme open (ie not-terminated) (at least until the Guarantee runs out when any deficit will fall solely on IBM UK rather that IBM Corp/World Trade) - so maybe the Trustee do have this as a bargaining position ? "

Strictly speaking, the DB plans were closed to future accrual (is this the same as fully closing them?) and the High Court case (at least that part of it known as a Part 8 Claim) is whether IBM rightly had these "Exclusion Powers" (ie had the power to exclude certain members from C plan benefits (ie accrual)). It is interesting that the HC case talks of IBM having or not having these Exclusion Powers - but does not (as far as I can see) talk about IBM's ability to close or not close the DB Plans (which I therefore assume to be something different to merely closing to future accrual). It is a moot point, but I think that strictly speaking, the DB Plans are not closed per-se (whatever, legally, that means), just closed to new entrants and to future accrual .



Subject Views Written By Posted
  Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 3332 Eddy 07 February 2014 10:39PM
  Re: Pension Statements - A strange CPI Issue 1548 ImGone 08 February 2014 11:35AM
  Re: Pension Statements - A strange CPI Issue 1438 Mad Dog 09 February 2014 05:52PM
  Re: Pension Statements - A strange CPI Issue 1702 Eddy 09 February 2014 08:26PM
  Re: Pension Statements - A strange CPI Issue 1328 Mad Dog 10 February 2014 12:07AM
  Re: Pension Statements - A strange CPI Issue 1414 Eddy 10 February 2014 07:47AM
  Re: Pension Statements - A strange CPI Issue 1974 CeeGee 11 February 2014 04:13PM
  Re: Pension Statements - A strange CPI Issue 1332 Eddy 10 February 2014 04:16PM
  Re: Pension Statements - A strange CPI Issue 1338 Mad Dog 10 February 2014 05:44PM
  Re: Pension Statements - A strange CPI Issue 1313 Eddy 11 February 2014 08:43AM
  Re: Pension Statements - A strange CPI Issue 1235 Mad Dog 11 February 2014 06:52PM
  Re: Pension Statements - A strange CPI Issue 1212 Eddy 11 February 2014 05:57PM
  Re: Pension Statements - A strange CPI Issue 1177 Mad Dog 11 February 2014 06:44PM
  Re: Pension Statements - A strange CPI Issue 1199 Ace Buzz 11 February 2014 07:14PM
  Re: Pension Statements - A strange CPI Issue 1307 Mad Dog 11 February 2014 07:34PM
  Re: Pension Statements - A strange CPI Issue 1267 CeeGee 11 February 2014 09:49PM
  Re: Pension Statements - A strange CPI Issue 1397 Ace Buzz 12 February 2014 06:21AM
  Re: Pension Statements - A strange CPI Issue 1374 CeeGee 12 February 2014 03:06PM
  Re: Pension Statements - A strange CPI Issue 1247 CeeGee 24 February 2014 08:05AM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM sidesteps first court judgement. 1511 Eddy 11 February 2014 10:15PM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM sidesteps first court judgement. 1453 thoms 12 February 2014 07:22AM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM sidesteps first court judgement. 1285 ImGone 12 February 2014 05:01PM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM sidesteps first court judgement. 1295 Mad Dog 12 February 2014 05:21PM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1325 Eddy 12 February 2014 05:40PM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1260 Mad Dog 12 February 2014 05:48PM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1259 Eddy 12 February 2014 05:59PM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1239 jerry 12 February 2014 08:56PM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1282 Slide Rule 12 February 2014 09:13PM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1252 Mad Dog 12 February 2014 09:47PM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1489 Anonymous User 13 February 2014 09:21AM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1235 Slide Rule 13 February 2014 10:32AM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1281 scunnered 13 February 2014 10:40AM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1296 Anonymous User 13 February 2014 11:11AM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1233 Mad Dog 14 February 2014 04:09PM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1333 GrumpyGuts 13 February 2014 08:15AM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1514 Mad Dog 13 February 2014 09:33AM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1274 GrumpyGuts 13 February 2014 09:39AM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1488 Mad Dog 13 February 2014 10:53AM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1345 blaster 14 February 2014 03:19PM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1326 CeeGee 14 February 2014 07:23PM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1209 scunnered 17 February 2014 03:08PM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1237 growingold 14 February 2014 08:57PM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1312 Eddy 15 February 2014 07:51AM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1293 Ace Buzz 15 February 2014 08:51AM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1257 ImGone 15 February 2014 12:07PM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1218 Mike Eacott 15 February 2014 11:44AM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1249 dave 16 February 2014 08:54AM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1290 Mad Dog 16 February 2014 09:30AM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1282 dave 16 February 2014 10:55AM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1231 goner 16 February 2014 06:59PM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1332 dave 16 February 2014 10:45PM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1307 Ace Buzz 17 February 2014 07:21AM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1236 goner 17 February 2014 05:10PM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1322 dave 17 February 2014 09:54PM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1326 ImGone 18 February 2014 11:34AM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1301 itsnotthe companyIjoined 18 February 2014 12:14PM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1339 Mike Eacott 18 February 2014 12:55PM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1307 JACK05 18 February 2014 02:55PM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1357 Anonymous User 18 February 2014 05:14PM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1427 ImGone 19 February 2014 02:05PM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1361 dave 18 February 2014 03:32PM
  Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement. 1349 Eddy 24 February 2014 10:55AM


Sorry, you do not have permission to post/reply in this forum.
This forum powered by Phorum.