UK - A complex legal case concerning the funding of the Pilots National Pension Fund has started in the High Court.
The scheme - established in 1971 - currently has a £200m deficit. The trustee is seeking to establish the extent of its powers to levy contributions on the ports that authorise pilots.
Eversheds head of pensions litigation Giles Orton, who is directly involved in the case, explained the unique feature of the scheme is that 75% of the liabilities relate to self-employed service.
Orton said by special HM Revenue & Customs concession pilots, who historically have generally been self-employed, have been allowed to participate in an occupational scheme.
He said: "The court is, accordingly having to grapple with complex questions on the application of the scheme specific funding and employer debt legislation, and the scheme's power of amendment, to the highly unusual circumstances of the scheme.
"For self-employed members, who if anyone was the ‘employer'."
Orton added: "The recent High Court decisions of Hearn v Dobson and Cemex are being revisited, and both the DWP and the regulator are watching carefully for the implications of the decision.
"Most of the great and the good in the field of pensions litigation are involved. As well as the trustees there are eight defendants representing various categories of member and port."
The trial is expected to last at least three weeks before Mr Justice Warren.
An innovative funding structure has been agreed for Croydon Pension Fund. However, there are some concerns about the arrangement. Stephanie Baxter reports
Some 52% of red flags raised by schemes on suspected scam pension transfers involve advisers or unregulated introducers, a report by the Pension Scams Industry Group (PSIG) has claimed.
The Norfolk Pension Fund has been successful as the lead plaintiff in a class action case that went to jury trial in California involving securities fraud.
In this week's Pensions Buzz, we want to know whether bosses should have to pay into the same staff DB scheme as their workers rather than their own executive pension fund.