A copy of the Q&A about the Ultimatum in searchable form is available, courtesy of the Webmaster, at http://www.halcrowpensioners.org.uk/media/HPS_Q_A_09Jun16.pdf (http://www.halcrowpensioners.org.uk/media/HPS_Q_A_09Jun16.pdf)
A detailed review has been drafted for scrutiny by the HPA Committee and others.
Many key questions remain unanswered
- Why has the Pension Regular used the extremely uncommon RAA and has it followed all the complex procedures involved?
- How will CH2M complete its worldwide contracts with or through Halcrow if it dismisses rather than transfers Halcrow staff?
- How can the current offer be the best one possible when the dollar has strengthened by 10% since it was formulated?
- How were the PPF and buy-out deficits estimated for 2014 if no valuation has been made since 2008?
- Why have CH2M made contributions of around £57 million to HPS if they had no legal obligation to do so?
- Why is the background information provided in the Q&A so economical with the truth?
- What should we understand from the 2011 statement approved by CH2M that "CH2M Hill has stated that they will honour payments under the existing agreed recovery plan."
CH2M's payments are referred to as legal obligations in the 2015 accounts filed with the US Security Exchange Commission. We continue to believe this is exactly what they are and that CH2M cannot walk away from the liabilities of Halcrow, a totally integrated subsidiary subject to UK laws.
Our lawyers are seeking answers to these and similar questions and we strongly suggest members wait until we have them before responding to the ultimatum.
I note from the Q&As (3.3) that the new pension scheme will have the same trustees as the current HPS. Given their track record to date, this is hardly likely to positively sway my decision to transfer to the new scheme.
If we decide to move to the new scheme, is this a situation that we just have to accept or do we have any say over the people that are supposed to be protecting our future?
The Halcrow Group Ltd accounts for year ending Dec 2014 have a FRS17 assessment of pension liabilities towards the back (starts page 29 of 35). Accounts are freely available from Companies House.
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/03415971/filing-history, might go some way towards explaining how they decided there is a massive pension liability without actually doing the actuarial valuations
We have been through these documents with a fine toothcomb, and have found anomalies in the assessment of liabilities on an on-going basis which will require explanation.
It seems to me that there is a fundamental issue to be clarified - do CH2M have an ongoing liability to the HPS or not?
As we move closer to the imposed August deadline, it will become increasingly important to understand what the options are for us as individuals. If we do not respond then it will be assumed that we will be sent into the PPF process, if we respond and accept the alternative proposed scheme are we losing the benefits which we currently enjoy as members of the HPS should it be concluded that CH2M do have an ongoing liability?
I have asked the pensions team how they would view a qualified response: a response that accepts the move to the alternative proposal subject to the conclusion of the liability challenge.
My concern being that once someone has agreed to move to the CH2M then there is no going back to the HPS. If it is true that once one has left then there is no going back, then it may be better to opt for the PPF as one would not have left the scheme at all, and it is the HPS that is moving to the PPF and taking its members with it.
I am also unclear if/how the challenge process is happening -- who is challenging the liability of CH2M; when is there likely to be a conclusion; how does that conclusion affect any members who have agreed to transfer to CH2M alternative.
I'm not sure how we get clarification on these issues.
Bill
Quote from: Stephen Brichieri-Colombi on June 12, 2016, 03:58:35 PM
A copy of the Q&A about the Ultimatum in searchable form is available, courtesy of the Webmaster, at http://www.halcrowpensioners.org.uk/media/HPS_Q_A_09Jun16.pdf (http://www.halcrowpensioners.org.uk/media/HPS_Q_A_09Jun16.pdf)
A detailed review has been drafted for scrutiny by the HPA Committee and others.
Many key questions remain unanswered
- Why has the Pension Regular used the extremely uncommon RAA and has it followed all the complex procedures involved?
- How will CH2M complete its worldwide contracts with or through Halcrow if it dismisses rather than transfers Halcrow staff?
- How can the current offer be the best one possible when the dollar has strengthened by 10% since it was formulated?
- How were the PPF and buy-out deficits estimated for 2014 if no valuation has been made since 2008?
- Why have CH2M made contributions of around £57 million to HPS if they had no legal obligation to do so?
- Why is the background information provided in the Q&A so economical with the truth?
- What should we understand from the 2011 statement approved by CH2M that "CH2M Hill has stated that they will honour payments under the existing agreed recovery plan."
CH2M's payments are referred to as legal obligations in the 2015 accounts filed with the US Security Exchange Commission. We continue to believe this is exactly what they are and that CH2M cannot walk away from the liabilities of Halcrow, a totally integrated subsidiary subject to UK laws.
Our lawyers are seeking answers to these and similar questions and we strongly suggest members wait until we have them before responding to the ultimatum.
It is confusing. In 2011, the judge said (para 48 of transcript of judgement) "There is no evidence that it would be to the commercial advantage of USCo to do other than to comply with the Company's obligations to the HPS, and I should say that I very much hope that this will prove to be the case."
From this, it appears CH2M does have obligations to fund the scheme, but the question is whether the obligations are legally enforceable. For an ethical company, the difference should not be important. Unfortunately, for CH2M, it appears to be.
It is pointless to fill in the option to agree to be transferred to the PPF, and this action could be used to show you have voluntarily given up your accrued pension rights. If you do not fill in the form, your rights will be preserved even if you are transferred to the PPF against your will. This could be important if a Court strikes down the use of the RAA without a company being wound up in, for example, a future class action suit.
If you do plan to agree to transfer to HPS(No.2), read what you are signing carefully. If you are a pensioner already, decide if you want to give up your accrued rights in exchange for a one-off 2.5% increase. To find out what living 20 years with a frozen pension is like, google "frozen pension".