The HPA today launched legal proceedings. Details will be released on Tuesday.
Appeal to Upper Tribunal
On 7th July, Edward Evans, co-chair of the HPA, submitted an application to the Upper Tribunal on behalf of the HPA to appeal the decision by tPR to issue a Regulated Apportionment Arrangement (RAA) in respect of the HPS. The appeal was submitted by Martin Jenkins, a solicitor from Irwin Mitchell LLP.
The Upper Tribunal is a court that hears appeals against decisions of various government agencies. Appeals normally have to be submitted within 28 days, but both tPR and the UT can waive that requirement. The UT has the power to award plaintiffs the costs of legal and other support, and to suspend the ultimatum until a judicial review has been undertaken.
The HPA has set out the grounds for its appeal, supported by an exhibit that sets out arguments rebutting the four key planks in the reasoning of tPR in issuing an RAA, viz:
1. that insolvency of Halcrow is imminent
2. that CH2M Hill derives and has derived no net benefit from its ownership of Halcrow
3. that CH2M Hill are not seeking to engineer the position now prevailing
4. that the experts on whom the Trustees (and therefore tPR) are relying have the full picture
We have indicated that we recognize that it may not be possible for our accrued rights to a pension under the HPS to be paid in full, and are open to a negotiated settlement that takes inflation into account. In our view, the £80 million so far offered by CH2M is well below what may be considered a reasonable offer.
We very much hope that the Pensions Regulator, Trustees and CH2M/Halcrow will recognize the need for full and frank discussions on options for a sustainable and transparent solution if the HPS is, as they allege, unsustainable. This should be based on full disclosure of the current assets of HPS and a comprehensive report in the style of the 2008 Valuation report, showing up-to-date and accurate estimates of the HPS pension obligations prepared using assumptions that are considered fair and reasonable by tPR.
Current payments into HPS average around £1 million per month, corresponding to £5 million from August until end 2016. This is far less than the £80 million that has been budgeted to be paid in September, and further £2 million in contributions, should the proposed HPS (No.2) go ahead, so there is no reason to believe Halcrow would be made insolvent, and jobs put at risk, due to any delays as a result of a judicial review.
In 2013, the year in which the 2011 Valuation Report should have been published, CH2M HILL proudly announced that it "was one of the first engineering and construction companies to publish a sustainability report in 2005. Every year since, we have continued this tradition to be transparent in reporting on internal operations related to sustainability." We ask that their actions support their words.
Update
The Trustees, tPR and the Pension Protection Fund have today been advised in writing of our appeal to the Upper Tribunal against the grant of the Regulated Apportionment Arrangement, and that we are seeking a general postponement of the preparation of the RAA and the relevant consultation process whilst their claim is being considered by the Tribunal.
It is suggested that members should "qualify your signature with the words 'without prejudice to the result of any future legal action' ".
I have two questions:
1) Could this not invalidate the selection of Option A, as it would not be an unconditional acceptance?
2) If the Appeal is successful, the entire process is eventually modified and conditions improved for the new pension scheme, would not the present process become redundant for all members, regardless of their first choice even if it was not qualified, and the revised Options would have to be put to members?
There appears to be a potential disbenefit and no clear benefit from adding the 'without prejudice'.
I have specifically asked how HPS trustees would view a qualified response, and was advised that they would not accept it! I presume that would mean that the qualified response associated with transferring to HPS2 would be null and void and they would then assume a nil response which would mean a vote for the PPF!
David and Bill make good points. If there has been no postponement of the decision return date within the next 10 to 14 days, it might be wise for HPA to obtain guidance from its lawyers, and to publish it in time to guide HPS members.
I totally support comments from David, Bill & Tim regarding the need for legal opinion on the issue of the validity of a qualified response.
We also need a definitive legal opinion as to whether HPS2, should it fail, is protected by the PPF, as is the case with HPS1. This issue has been discussed elsewhere but I don't think it has ever been satisfactorily answered.
The clock is ticking.
Fully agree with the others' comments. First prize would be advice from our legal advisers. Otherwise, for those of us overseas for whom advice may not come in time, how about something like "...as may be subsequently amended in my favour by the parties"?
Meanwhile, many thanks to Steve, Edward & Co for all their efforts. And kind regards to other old friends.
Tony
Signing the form: Action
The Trustees have acknowledged our legal challenge in the Q&A dated 15 July 2015. As this may take time, we have consulted our lawyer about signing the options document while it is under way, and received this advice:
"The offer of a choice between reduced benefits in a new plan or PPF is only legally valid if the Regulated Apportionment Arrangement is in place. Accordingly if the legal challenge is successful any agreement to reduced benefits should not in my view continue to apply."
If you select Option A, you sign away your accrued pension rights, which cannot be taken away without your consent. To overcome this, our legal advisor advises that if you want to reply before we hear about the response from the Upper Tribunal to our challenge,you qualify your reply with the words: "Accepted subject to any legal challenge not changing the position."
If you have already signed Option A and sent your form, you can e-mail the Trustees to say you wish to modify your option by including this qualification, and ask for your signed form to be amended accordingly, or a new one issued. Alternatively, you can download and print off a new form from the HPA website, and send that.
Yesterday, tPR wrote to the Upper Tribunal (UT) to ask that they refuse to hear our case on the grounds that we are not Directly Affected Parties. They infer that we are "mere busybodies", but have asked for an urgent decision on this interpretation by the UT. We believe every pensioner who have their pension frozen is affected, and will argue accordingly.
A copy of the tPR letter is attached.
Newsflash: The UT has just rejected tPRs request to deny us a hearing and asked them to show why the UT does not have jurisdiction in this matter.
Qualified Response to Options: The following letter has just been emailed to the Pensions Team
"I refer to the email of 20th July 2016 that you sent to a number of members of the HPS.
The situation has arisen because the Trustee has not sought the blessing of a court on the current arrangement, and the very dubious procedure of circumventing restrictions on the use of RAA by creating a company in order to make it insolvent, as explained in your circular of 15th July. We assume their reluctance to do so is a result of the failure of their previous attempt to reduce our pensions.
On the basis of legal advice, the HPA advised members to qualify their acceptance because of the legal challenge being put forward by a member of the HPS on behalf of the HPA, in the form of an appeal to the Upper Tribunal. Although tPR has sought a decision from the UT that the appeal be denied on the grounds that we are "mere busybodies", their request has been denied and the UT has now called for legal arguments to be presented under Section 8.2(a) of their Rules, to show that the Upper Tribunal does not have jurisdiction in relation to the proceedings.
As a result of the appeal, the legality of the ultimatum you have presented to members is now in question, and a decision on how to proceed is before a judge.
We therefore ask that, as a matter of urgency, the company (whose consultation this is) and the Trustee (who has an obligation to protect members interests) issue guidance to all members of the HPS and confirm that an acceptance will not be treated as binding in the event of a change of position following the challenge.
Please confirm you will bring this email to the attention of the company and the Trustee.
Regards
Stephen
Stephen Brichieri-Colombi
Chairman, HPA
Thought members might enjoy this quote from the House of Commons library briefing paper "The Pensions Regulator - powers to protect pension benefits":
The new clauses are designed to protect the PPF and scheme members from another moral hazard—the risk posed by
unscrupulous employers who might seek to use company structures and business transactions as a cover for side-stepping
their pension obligations in the form of the debt due from the employer under section 75 of the Pensions Act 1995.
... The actions taken by company groups might include withdrawing funding for the employer company, selling off its assets, paying a
large dividend to strip out any assets in the company or transferring the employees to another company such as a service
company, which would then become the employer and which would never have traded or have had any assets to speak of.
Edward
At least we have helped others.
Pity no action by the regulator in 2011.
As the HPA has received no reply to the email sent to the Pensions Team on 20 July, we have asked Martin Jenkins to send a version of our message to the Trustees and the Pensions Team.
Here is a reply I received in response to Selected option A.
Attached is a copy of my letter.
From: <PensionsTeam@ch2m.com>
Date: Monday, 25 July 2016 at 22:04
To: Tony Foster <anthonycolinfoster@gmail.com>
Subject: Option Form - REJECTED
Dear Mr Foster
I refer to the attached email with copy of your signed Option Form qualified by a letter setting out your acceptance with the wording 'under duress'. I have referred this to the Trustee's legal adviser and this wording is deemed as a qualification to your consent.
As explained in the letter from the Trustee of 31 May 2016 in your offer pack, it is not possible for the Trustee to transfer members to the new pension scheme unless we have your written consent to do so. Also, if you choose to transfer to the new scheme, you are also consenting to your benefits being modified under the Halcrow Pension Scheme to align these with the benefits that will be provided from the new scheme.
Because the Trustee needs to be absolutely clear you are consenting to the transfer and the changes, I'm afraid the Trustee insists on there being NO qualification to this consent, as this would call into question whether you have actually given your full consent. If the Trustee has not received your full consent to the transfer by the deadline, you will unfortunately be transferred to the PPF, as explained in your offer pack and follow up Q&As. The deadline is 5th August.
The Trustee noted in the Q&A sent out on 15 July that they were aware of a possible legal challenge about the member offer to transfer to the new scheme. The Trustee is not currently aware of any grounds on which a legal challenge would be successful. However, in the light of this, understandably some members have asked how their consents to transfer to the new scheme would be treated in the event there was a successful legal challenge to the transfer going ahead, or to the terms of that transfer. I would confirm that in those circumstances the Trustee would not expect to proceed with the transfer on its current terms.
I attach a further Option Form for you to print off, complete and return if you so wish. I would reiterate that any qualified Option Form received will be REJECTED and would not apply.
Regards
Paula
Paula J Gibbons
UK Pensions Manager
D 01793 816549
CH2M
Burderop Park
Swindon. SN4 0QD
United Kingdom
www.ch2m.com | LinkedIn | Twitter | Facebook
Any thoughts on this? It looks like if anything is added or qualified on the option form to be sent in by 5 August may render it invalid according to the Trustee and we would automatically be transferred to the PPF. On the other hand, if the legal challenge is succesful, "[size=0px]the Trustee would not expect to proceed with the transfer on its current terms" - [/size]Not quite specific or clear to me whether this means that the whole process becomes invalid or whether we may have signed away our rights regardless. Another curve ball to contend with. Grateful for any advice from the legal minds.
Any further update on the legal challenge?
I see the case is now on the "Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery) financial services hearings and register" list
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/upper-tribunal-tax-and-chancery-register-of-cases/upper-tribunal-tax-and-chancery-financial-services-hearings-and-register-table (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/upper-tribunal-tax-and-chancery-register-of-cases/upper-tribunal-tax-and-chancery-financial-services-hearings-and-register-table)
But looking down the list some hearings take a while to happen.
Meelit
The current position appears to be:
The legal advice to qualify one's reply with the words: "Accepted subject to any legal challenge not changing the position" has not (so far) been changed
HPA's lawyer has asked the Trustees and the Pensions Team, as a matter of urgency, to confirm that an acceptance will not be treated as binding in the event of a change of position following the challenge. Reply still awaited.
Tony Foster has been told by Halcrow that no qualification is acceptable. However, that is not formal advice to HPS members and anyway, as you have identified, is insufficiently precise.
Hence we urgently await the reply to HPA's lawyer and his subsequent amendment to, or confirmation of, his existing advice.
I have received a similar response when writing tp Paula on behalf of the HPA, and have replied this morning as follows:
We appreciate the Trustees desire for certainty, as we share that desire. You have identified conditions under which the Trustees would not expect to proceed with the transfer. Can we therefore agree that members can qualify their response in exactly the way you are proposing, with a minor grammatical change.
"I attach herewith my signed option. Please note that In the event there were a successful legal challenge to the transfer going ahead, or to the terms of that transfer, I retain the right to withdraw my consent to the transfer and to any reduction in my accrued rights to a pension under the HPS."
I am awaiting a response.
I can understand why deferred members might want to sign, as they are being offered much better terms. As a I pensioner, I see very little to gain from signing away my accrued rights even though there is a possibility they may not be paid by CH2M/Halcrow
Update 27 July 2016
We regret to advise that we have had to drop our case to avoid the small but existential risk of exposing members to financial risks of an adverse cost award.
We investigated the possibility of creating a company but Counsel have advised that substituting a recently-formed limited company to act for the HPA in place of Edward Evans at this stage would not be accepted by the UT, despite the fact that this is precisely what the Trustees have done and what CH2M/Halcrow plans to do to jettison the HPS.
After a long discussion with Martin Jenkins about possible adverse costs and a review of the responses from Committee members, we have reluctantly concluded that we cannot afford the risk of major counter-claims.
To defend the interests of pensioners, tPR opposed not only our case, but objected to the Upper Tribunal hearing it in the first place. We would therefore have had to fight three cases: the right to be heard, the right to have our legal costs paid, and the case we originally lodged with the UT. All three cases would have involved costs in excess of £100,000, with an upper limit measured in millions.
We have therefore instructed IM to write to the UT explaining that we had brought the case in the belief that members of pension schemes were clearly people who were affected by changes to their pensions, but we do not have the financial resources to dispute a claim by tPR to the contrary. It is with a deep sense of injustice that we are therefore obliged to withdraw our case. The UT has accepted the withdrawal of the case.
We will give more details in a newsletter. Members of the HPS and the broader public may wonder, as we do, why CH2M/Halcrow, the tPR and the PPF do not want the case to be heard in open court. Part of the explanation may be due to the fact that the rump HPS will be transferred to a company with a paid up share capital of £1 that was set up by a man who retired from his senior position with the PPF in 2013. This company is the one that will be made insolvent so members can enter the PPF. The amount that he is being paid to provide this service has not yet been disclosed.
My thanks to the many of you who contributed the articles and snippets of information on which the Committee were able to build a strong case that will, unfortunately, not be heard by the Upper Tribunal. But you can be sure it will be heard elsewhere.
We can give no further guidance on which option to select, but suggest you follow closely the route being followed by Malcolm Fletcher. He represents well the Halcrow that I worked with for 20 years, and in which I had great pride. Sic transit gloria.
This website will remain open for a while yet.
Given that a prima facie case has been identified against the RAA. The HPS Trustees, who allegedly look after members' interest and have a legal duty to do so need to fulfill their roles and take over the Upper Tribunal Appeal.
I note that at least 5 of the 7 HPS Trustees have a pecuniary interest in CH2M/Halcrow, they need show independence .
The zero inflation criteria pre 1997 is totally unacceptable and discriminatory.
We are all very disappointed at the decision that has been taken. If anyone has any ideas of how else we could raise our concerns in the public domain, please do let us know.
I would like to say thank you to Stephen, Edward, John Ratsey and other committee members who have worked tirelessly in the background and to Tim Smith for posting press reports and setting up the Facebook Page.
Quote from: Stephen Brichieri-Colombi on July 27, 2016, 04:19:46 PM
Members of the HPS and the broader public may wonder, as we do, why CH2M/Halcrow, the tPR and the PPF do not want the case to be heard in open court.
I should add that the parties fighting against HPA include Lovells (acting for HPS) and Sackers (acting for the Trustee) who indicated that they would attend the court hearing and indicated that they would vigorously oppose the application. No doubt they had been given a blank cheque by CH2M. There is something clearly broken with a system which comprises organisations intended to protect pension scheme members' interests but actually do the opposite.
Stephen mentions following the route of Malcolm but I do not see details of this in the Forum. Grateful if you would explain further.
I wonder why the directors at the time of the sale have not stuck their heads above the parapet??
Very grateful for the considerable efforts of the HPA Committee etc. in the short time frame available to them.
Would it be an option to send a pointed missive to the Trustees individually signed by all HPA members (similar to a petition) re their failures at the point of sale, at the 2011 valuation and in caving in to CH2M to facilitate the secret court case and RAA? Not that it would do any good re Chris Martin or DJP's blinkered vision but it would show the Trustees the breadth of feeling of a substantial number of pensioners.
Wish you every success also in getting the full story into the media. Now that there is no court case, there is no harm in getting the full story out there with whatever facts and evidence at HPA's disposal. Debunk this "saving HPS" and "rescuing HGL" and turn CH2M into next week's Sir Shifty as the unacceptable face of capitalism. Perhaps Clients will think twice about doing business with them.
Regret that we do not know what route Malcolm Fletcher is following. Please may we be urgently directed to this approach as doubtless it will be the most sensible option in the current disappointing circumstances?
Lynn and I would like to thank all of you for the tremendous effort you have been putting in for the last several years on all our behalfs. Very much appreciated.
Rapid response hoped for. Thanks.
I have just asked Malcolm if he would allow me to send you copies of the documents he has received from his MP. I will let you know his response.
The avenue he is pursing is through the Pensions Ombudsman who has the power to investigate maladministration by the trustee of a scheme or by an employrer on a pensions matter.
I am going to a meeting tomorrow with the OPA and hope to be able to give more information after the meeting.
We are looking at other ways of getting the message into the public domain about what has happened. It has been suggested that we put a document together for the Work and Pensions Committee.
Other suggestions include and e-petition, a twitter account, contacting tabloid newspapers - they love this sort of story. Any ideas would be gratefully received.
Minor correction PGG had nothing to do with the 5% minimum pension increase. This happened in the 80s before he was in any position have had anything to do with the change.
Blame the then partnership as I think this was before the change to a corporate status.
An unwise decision maybe but it should be remembered this was against the background of major profits on certain overseas projects and memories of the disastrous inflation levels in the 70s that wiped out many people on fixed pensions.
I have made preliminary contact with US lawyers about a possible $532 million class action suit against CH2M on a no-win, no-fee basis. Typical slice for the lawyers is 1/3 of winnings, so it might be temping. I am advised that class action suits by pensioners are currently seen as a very profitable area for law companies in the US.
Early days, but lets see what develops.
I shall not be signing the form as I wish to preserve my rights to a full HPS pension unless a better deal can be struck.
Stephen,
If your not signing I'd include a covering letter to state that your 'not signing' is intentional and that you are preserving your rights.
Robert,
Gammie will in fact lose out with this robbery. All pensions accrued pre 1997 service get zero inflation ie fixed rate - with inflation eating away quickly to the buying power for life. Of course, zero inflation is unjustified and is discriminatory on a number of levels.
Basically we have a Pensions Regulator that needs closing down - HoC Select Committee are looking at this.
We have the usual warm word 'Ethical' until it comes to reality and CH2 seem to have some difficulty in walking the talk.
We have a Board of Trustees who are selected rather than elected. I fully expect Chris Martin the £350 per hour 'professional' Trustee to disappear once this is over. He was also Chair of BHS Trustees and we have similarities between the two schemes.
The Trustees should have attended Court in 2011 to fight to have the sale proceeds of a bankrupt company used to reduce the Scheme deficit - rather than benefit shareholders; but of course if they had done that the Halcrow Trust could not have paid out on a difficult to understand criteria and I suspect may have benefitted some Trustees. An area I would expect a future HoC Select Committee to investigate
We now have a parent company, CH2M, with a need to raise $1bn over the next 5 years to pay-off retiring shareholders and can't do it without outside finance - external financiers will not like a DB Pension scheme, and I suspect that this is what is driving the whole process.
So the score at the moment is Shareholders 2 Pensioners 0. A score that needs to be very well publicised if it remains.
Stephen
Can you please clarify the position re. preservation of one's rights to a full HPS pension by not signing the form? Surely, if CH2 gets away with its schemes, one's rights have no value: one simply has PPF rights. If, on the other hand, CH2's schemes are somehow overturned, implicit in that would be that pensioners' rights had been invalidly removed and were thus reinstated. Or have I missed something?
Evidently you are willing to pay the price for this preservation of rights, which presumably is 2.5% of pension, each and every year, so you must consider preservation important.
With time running out rapidly, I still don't know what to do!
Robert
The 5% minimum increase for pre 1997 members is based on service to 31/3/1999.
I'm not sure that the reduction in inflation could have been forseen with such certainly as you suggest. RPI as stated in the 2012 pensions revaluation was 5.2%
The annual rate of increase for the 10 years up to 1997 was:
1988 6.8%
1989 7.7%
1990 9.3%
1991 4.5%
1992 2.6%
1993 1.9%
1994 2.9%
1995 3.2%
1996 2.5%
1997 3.6%
Hindsite is a wonderful thing.
Quote from: Tim SMITH on July 29, 2016, 11:17:33 AM
Can you please clarify the position re. preservation of one's rights to a full HPS pension by not signing the form? Surely, if CH2 gets away with its schemes, one's rights have no value: one simply has PPF rights. If, on the other hand, CH2's schemes are somehow overturned, implicit in that would be that pensioners' rights had been invalidly removed and were thus reinstated. Or have I missed something?
When my acceptance of Option A was rejected because it was qualified I asked the HPS Admin whether unqualified acceptance of Option A would be considered to represent surrendering my right to the pension I have earned through service with Halcrow and membership of HPS. I am waiting for an answer and am not proposing to surrender that right in case a route for recovering some / all of that lost income becomes available.
To get an extra 2.5% in return for surrendering my rights is either robbery, bribery or bullying. None of which are compatible with CH2M's ethics policy. I don't accept bribes and can be expected to react if robbed or bullied!
Quote from: John Ratsey on July 29, 2016, 04:35:25 PM
When my acceptance of Option A was rejected because it was qualified I asked the HPS Admin whether unqualified acceptance of Option A would be considered to represent surrendering my right to the pension I have earned through service with Halcrow and membership of HPS. I am waiting for an answer and am not proposing to surrender that right in case a route for recovering some / all of that lost income becomes available.
Hi John
Could you share with us the exact wording of your qualified acceptance?
Thanks!
I am just about to email my Option Form from the Philippines and post it by very snail mail at the same time. I was going to caveat the signing in order to reserve my rights however it appears that my form will be rejected if I do so. Does anybody know if an accompanying letter referring to the signed form and in which my rights are reserved would also cause the form to be rejected, or, would such a letter be invalid anyway?
Although silent, I have been following the proceeding with great self interest. I would like to express my heartfelt thanks to those who took up the cudgel on behalf of we Halcrow pensioners and wish them all the best with their personal dilemmas over the sign/not sign issue.
Quote from: John Drake on July 29, 2016, 08:33:44 PM
Hi John
Could you share with us the exact wording of your qualified acceptance?
John: As recommended here last week: "Accepted subject to any legal challenge not changing the position".
As noted above, I am not willing to unconditionally sign up to a deal which was cooked up, in secret, without consultation, with the transparency of thick mud and is biased against those with service pre-April 1997. Just because the PPF gives a zero % increase for such service doesn't mean it is a reasonable approach and, just lest we forget, the PPF does not pay a pension: It pays compensation.
The one-off 2.5% bribe is negligible compared to the HPS increase of 5% compounded over, say 20 years and is small compared to the likely increase in CPI (in my opinion, the minimum that should have been offered) over the same period. We should not forget that in spite of the vast amounts being spent on forcing these options onto HPS members they have refused to make the small effort of providing personal illustations of their impact relative to the existing HPS.
Mort: You can only try the separate letter approach and keep a copy. If sending via email you might get a quick feedback.
The speaker at the OPA meeting on Thursday advised we send a covering letter with our form.
Quote from: John Ratsey on July 30, 2016, 07:17:06 AM
John: As recommended here last week: "Accepted subject to any legal challenge not changing the position".
As noted above, I am not willing to unconditionally sign up to a deal which was cooked up, in secret, without consultation, with the transparency of thick mud and is biased against those with service pre-April 1997.
Thanks John, absolutely agree with that, but it's interesting that they regard what is effectively a request that they act within the law as an unacceptable qualification!
Just received a letter fro the Trustee stating that the response deadline is extended to 31 August. Also that "no qualification" will be accepted and to ignore "forums" (by which I do not doubt they mean HPA). Have everyone else had this?
There is a thread under the heading "HPS Option Deadline Postponed..." I would expect that all HPS members have received this letter.
Quote from: finneyb on July 29, 2016, 08:23:08 AM
Robert,
Gammie will in fact lose out with this robbery. All pensions accrued pre 1997 service get zero inflation ie fixed rate - with inflation eating away quickly to the buying power for life. Of course, zero inflation is unjustified and is discriminatory on a number of levels.
I may be wrong but I understood that Group Board had a separate pension scheme.
Quote from: Tony Hoyle on August 01, 2016, 11:14:06 AM
I may be wrong but I understood that Group Board had a separate pension scheme.
Hmm, I wonder whether that scheme is in any sort of difficulty?
Worth asking the Pensions Team
40 years ago, the Group Board were members of The Halcrow Director's Pensions Scheme, no real difference between their scheme and the one for the rest of the staff. On 1 March 1993 the main board and the directors became part of the Halcrow Pension Scheme. MSF and Tony Cadwallander amalgamated the two schemes, with the actuary's approval. At the time of the amalgamation both schemes were in surplus.
I would like to add my thanks to Steve, Edward, John, Jane and all others involved in this pursuing and challenging this depressing arrangement.
I agree this needs to be brought to the attention of the press, public and relevant authorities to help ensure any future arrangements are held to account, and that other organisations considering following this route have second thoughts.
Given the information elicited by the hard work of the HPA committee, I found the comments in DJP's recent letter dated 29 July 2016 ".......we would strongly encourage you not to rely on the views of individuals or organisations who may have no relevant expertise, no proper understanding of the proposals and who carry no legal responsibility for what they choose to say." to be deeply offensive, patronising and revealing a mindset and defensiveness within the Trustee and Administrator group that has hampered HPS for many years.
Quote from: Stephen Brichieri-Colombi on July 29, 2016, 07:27:04 AM
I have made preliminary contact with US lawyers about a possible $532 million class action suit against CH2M on a no-win, no-fee basis. Typical slice for the lawyers is 1/3 of winnings, so it might be temping. I am advised that class action suits by pensioners are currently seen as a very profitable area for law companies in the US.
Early days, but lets see what develops.
I shall not be signing the form as I wish to preserve my rights to a full HPS pension unless a better deal can be struck.
I have also been in contact with two US lawyers regarding potential class action against CH2M on a no win no fee basis.
Seem this is becoming a real possibility.
It could take years though any many pensioners may have passed away before they collect.
Perhaps it might be better if there could be a compromise. Between Option A and the original HPS.
CH2M do not seem the compromising type so perhaps ultimately the class action option will be the only way.
Not good for CH2M as it will impact their balance sheet for years and not good for pensioners as they might be dead before they collect their lost pension benefits.
As Steve said lets see what develops.
That compromise (ref Tony's post above) might come about regardless of CH's wishes if the CJEU rules that pensioners in receipt of PPF compensation must receive at least half of any entitlements to annual increases in their pension. I don't know what the probability is. Please see my posts here (Replies 39 and 40):
http://www.halcrowpensioners.org.uk/forum/index.php?topic=164.new;topicseen#new