header-logo header-logo

Conflict resolution

24 January 2019 / Roderick Ramage
Issue: 7825 / Categories: Features , Pensions
printer mail-detail

Roderick Ramage discusses how pension scheme employers & trustees should tackle pension tussles

In most circumstances it is in the interests of both the employer and its pension scheme that different interests are represented on the board of trustees. Where there might be conflicts, the duties and powers of the parties must be examined to ascertain whether there is actually a conflict.

A rigid regime to avoid conflicts can be counter-productive and impose unreasonable restrictions on the conduct of both the employer’s and the scheme’s activities; but where conflicts are real and serious, the resignation of one or more or all of the conflicted parties might be necessary.

‘Conflict of interest’ does not imply actual conflict between the parties, but when the directors of the employer, and even more so its shareholders, are trustees, they have legal conflicts of interest: they have duties to both parties whose interest can become opposed with differences that must be resolved. There can also be conflicts if trustees are also members of the scheme.

There are two main elements

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll