UK - Members of Lloyds TSB Pension Funds are demanding to know whether the £4bn ($6.25bn) partnership created to plug the schemes' deficits was used to offload "toxic assets".
The Lloyds Trade Union - which represents 40,000 Lloyds staff - is concerned the bank is using the partnership to shift assets it cannot sell off its own balance sheet.
It said they could be worth a lot less than the value placed on them at the time of the last actuarial valuation, and pressed the bank to answer three key questions.
These are: what kind of assets have been contributed, what is their current value and will the bank top up the partnership if this drops, and who actually owns and controls the assets?
LTU general secretary Mark Brown said: "Silence on these important issues is not an option. The bank and the trustees need to confirm the details of the so called partnership agreement and how it is structured immediately.
"They also need to answer LTU's questions on the assets owned by the partnership and whether these include any so called 'toxic' assets such as mortgage backed securities."
The last actuarial valuation, in 2009 showed the Lloyds TSB No. 2 Pension Scheme to have a £2bn deficit while the No. 1 fund, largely made up of former employees had a shortfall of £6.5bn.
At that point the bank agreed with trustees of both schemes agreed to pump in an additional £1bn and to set up a partnership structure with £4bn of assets to fund the schemes.
Lloyds' annual report sates: "If the bank were unable to pay the agreed deficit contributions to the schemes during the recovery period, the trustees could use the assets in the partnership to meet those contributions."
But Brown said the union had become concerned at reports over the summer that several banks had used such arrangements to dump so called "toxic assets" onto their pension scheme.
A Lloyds Banking Group spokeswoman said the assets were high quality and helped diversify the asset profile of the scheme.
"The group takes a prudent approach to the long-term stability of its pension schemes," she said.
"Any changes to the funding of these schemes have to be approved by independent trustees who have a legal obligation to look after the interests of the pension fund. Members' needs continue to be our top priority."
Most respondents in this week's Pensions Buzz do not think businesses should be able suspend AE contributions if in financial distress.
Former BHS owner Dominic Chappell has lost the appeal against his section 72 conviction and sentence for failing to hand over information to The Pensions Regulator (TPR).
This week's top stories include Marsh and McLennan Companies agreeing to buy JLT, and the home secretary calling for AE to be scrapped in a no-deal Brexit scenario.
Lesley Titcomb says the watchdog wants closer interactions with pension funds to spot problems sooner and act before having to use its more stringent powers