7 Days is a weekly round up of developments in pensions, normally published on Monday afternoons. We collate this information from key industry sources, such as the DWP, HMRC and TPR.
In this 7 Days
- FCA publishes “Dear CEO” letter on managing risks of DB to DC transfers
- PPI report on DC scheme investment in illiquid and alternative assets
- TPR blog on master trust authorisation extensions
- Regulatory intervention report sets out TPR’s approach
- KeyMed Limited vs Hillman and Woodford (High Court, March 2019)
On 22 March 2019, the FCA published a Dear CEO letter to providers on managing the risks of DB to DC pension scheme transfers.
The FCA has carried out work to evaluate and reduce the risks of harm to consumers making such transfers, and identified “key drivers of harm”. The letter sets out what the FCA now expects from firms when designing, marketing and providing pension products.
A report from the PPI, published on 25 March 2019, sets out the potential challenges DC pension schemes face when looking to invest in illiquid and alternative assets. It examines the cost, operational, governance and regulatory barriers, and discusses how they may be overcome.
On 21 March 2019, TPR published a blog post on master trust authorisation extensions.
Written by Kim Brown, Head of Master Trust Authorisation and Supervision at TPR, it reminds schemes that, in the run-up to the 31 March deadline for applications, they may apply for an extension.
The blog confirms that TPR has granted 11 extensions to date, briefly covers the reasons a scheme may apply for an extension, and what a scheme making an application should expect.
TPR has published a regulatory intervention report relating to the GKN PLC Pension Schemes. TPR states that the report has a wider application, and is aimed at highlighting to trustees, employers and advisers how TPR expects to work with parties where there is a takeover or acquisition and a DB pension scheme is involved.
The High Court has dismissed a case against directors who were trustees of a pension scheme where the company had claimed they had breached their fiduciary duties, maximising their own pension benefits to the company’s detriment.
For further detail, please see our case report.