OFAC revokes so-called U-turn authorization for Cuba-related financial transactions
OFAC published a final rule that modifies the Cuban Assets Control Regulations to revoke the so-called "U-turn" authorization.
Legislation requires that preserved benefits held by deferred members of defined benefit (DB) pension schemes who left pensionable service on or after 1 January 1986 must be revalued to offset the effects of inflation between the date the member leaves service and the date he draws his pension. This is known as revaluation.
Similarly, since 6 April 1997, most DB schemes have been required to increase pensioners’ pensions in payment by a minimum amount each year. This is known as indexation.
Both revaluation and indexation increases are subject to a specific percentage cap which is calculated using limited price indexation (LPI). This means the percentage increase to benefits is usually the lesser of the annual increase in whichever inflation index is used and (since 6 April 2005) 2.5 per cent.
Legislation does not stipulate how inflation is to be measured for the purposes of either revaluation or indexation. Instead, the Secretary of State is required to make an annual order specifying the rate to be used and, historically, the index used was the retail prices index (RPI). RPI has its origins in the “cost of living index”, which was first published in 1914, with the modern RPI being published in 1956. The Consumer Prices Index (CPI) was introduced in 1997, following the EU’s harmonisation of the existing index of consumer prices. RPI and CPI each take into account a very different “basket of goods” in measuring inflation, with CPI generally, to date, producing a lower figure. However, it is widely accepted that neither index can accurately reflect the “cost of living” for actual scheme members, as this can be higher or lower than inflation depending on their level of consumption of various goods and services.
From April 2011, the Coalition Government decided to switch to CPI rather than RPI to calculate increases in social security payments and public sector pension benefits. The switch from RPI- to CPI-based calculations was subsequently extended to the minimum statutory increases required for private sector pensions. However, the Government did not introduce an overriding or modifying statutory power allowing schemes to switch automatically to CPI-linked indexation or revaluation where RPI was “hard-wired” into the scheme rules.
The remainder of this note looks at how the Courts have answered various questions arising when schemes have attempted to switch to CPI instead of RPI to calculate increases.
This question was addressed in Dank and others v QinetiQ Holdings Ltd and another  (QinetiQ). The scheme rules provided that the applicable index to be used for both indexation and revaluation was the “Index of Retail Prices…or any other suitable cost of living index selected by the trustees.” The rules, therefore, permitted the trustees to choose an index, such as CPI, instead of RPI.
The indexation rule provided that pensioners would have their pensions increased on 1 April each year. The revaluation rule operated so that the increase would be calculated upon the deferred member reaching the scheme’s normal retirement age, or the date of early retirement if this preceded normal retirement age.
The result of this approach is that, in the case of two given deferred members, one taking an early pension just before the trustees changed the index from RPI to CPI and one just after, the first member’s pension would be revalued by reference to RPI and the second by reference to CPI, notwithstanding that both members’ benefits may have accrued when the index was RPI. Vos J noted that “…the unfairness is the result of the fact that the value of neither member’s pension is crystallised until the date on which the…revaluation actually takes place…”.
The subsequent decision in Arcadia Group Ltd v Arcadia Group Pension Trust Ltd and another  (Arcadia) endorsed this approach to section 67, where Newey J concluded that “…members have a ‘subsisting right’ to increases and revaluation consistent with the definition of ‘Retail Prices Index’ but not to increases and revaluation specifically by reference to RPI” in situations where the rules provide that a different index can be substituted.
In QinetiQ, it was argued that “Index” must mean only one index.
Vos J rejected this approach and held that the definition of “Index” in QinetiQ could mean RPI for some periods or purposes and CPI for others. He noted that this was not only because the Law of Property Act 1925 provides that in all instruments the singular includes the plural, (that is, “Index” can also be read to be “Indices”) but also that he could justifiably read into the definition of “Index” the words “for particular periods or purposes”. An alternative conclusion, he reasoned, would make the scheme cumbersome, unworkable and inconsistent with business common sense. It could also, in many situations, act to the detriment of scheme members.
The cases demonstrate that whether the trustees have the power to use CPI instead of RPI for revaluation and/or indexation purposes depends upon the wording in the rules.
In Arcadia, the rules provided that the relevant measure of indexation was “Retail Prices Index [(or any replacement of that Index)]”. “Retail Prices Index” was in turn defined as “the Government’s Index of Retail Prices or any similar index satisfactory for the purposes of HMRC.”
Newey J held that the provisions of these rules allowed the trustees to choose an alternative index to be used other than RPI. His main reasoning was as follows :
Depending on the wording of specific scheme rules, it may be that the trustees have the power to choose an alternative index, provided that alternative index is “similar” to RPI and/or “satisfactory for the purposes of HMRC”. The Court in Arcadia considered whether CPI would satisfy these conditions.
The parties accepted that CPI was a “similar” index to RPI and this point was not, therefore, considered further. Equally, HMRC had confirmed in an email that CPI is a satisfactory measure for the purpose of indexation and therefore this did not need to be decided.
The Court did, however, consider if CPI could be regarded as “satisfactory for the purposes of HMRC” in respect of revaluation. Newey J held that “…an index must be regarded as ‘satisfactory for the purposes of [HMRC]’ if there are no grounds on which HMRC could properly or reasonably consider it other than satisfactory for their purposes….Given that (a) pension schemes are no longer approved by HMRC…(b) CPI has received Government endorsement and is now used for statutory revaluation of pensions and (c) the use of CPI…should not be in any way prejudicial to HMRC…”. Therefore, the Court concluded that CPI did satisfy the criteria for pension increase purposes. Newey J did, however, go on to note that “the position could…change…if…the statutory framework relating to pensions were altered…”.
In situations like Arcadia, it may be that the rules do not stipulate who has the power to determine which index applies.
In Arcadia, the Court considered the rules of the scheme as a whole. Newey J observed that under the scheme rules, the principal employer could not alter any of the members’ benefits without the trustees’ consent. He went on to say that the trustees “…can be seen as natural spokesmen for the scheme…[which] suggest[s] that they were intended to be involved in any exercise of the power of selection”.
The power of selection was, therefore, held to be vested in the principal employer and the trustees jointly.
In Buckinghamshire and others v Barnardo’s and others  (Barnardo’s), the schemes rules provided that, broadly, indexation and revaluation should be increased using the "prescribed rate", which was defined as the lesser of 5 per cent and "the percentage rise in the Retail Prices Index (if any)...".
"Retail Prices Index" was defined as the "General Index of Retail Prices or any replacement adopted by the Trustees without prejudicing Approval". A second sentence expanded this definition and referred to the “replacement or re-basing” of the Retail Prices Index.
The High Court held that the scheme rules did not give the trustees the power to switch from RPI to CPI for revaluation or indexation, so long as RPI remained an officially published index.
In November 2016, the Court of Appeal (CA) upheld the first instance decision. The CA stated that pension increases were determined by reference to the Retail Prices Index, which in turn was defined as “the General Index of Retail Prices…or a replacement adopted by the Trustees without prejudicing approval.” Lewison LJ, whose judgment formed part of the majority decision, held that the natural meaning of the first part of the definition was that a “replacement” of the RPI had to precede the adoption of any such replacement by the trustees. The second sentence, referring to replacement and re-basement of the RPI, was helpful in interpreting the first sentence of that definition.
The RPI (he said) can only be “re-based” by the authority responsible for publishing it. As the terms “replacing” and “rebasing” were used together in the second sentence, the same person had to carry out both the “replacing” and the “rebasing”. The term “replacing” had the same meaning in both the first and second parts of the definition. It followed that any “replacing” could only be carried out by the authority responsible for publishing the RPI and that, without its official replacement, there was no other “replacement” which the trustees could adopt instead.
Vos J’s dissenting judgment in the CA in Barnardo’s took a different approach to the interpretation of the definition of the RPI. In his view, whilst “rebasing” could only be carried out by the publishing authority, “replacing” could be carried out either by that authority or by the trustees. The use of both terms together, he considered, did not necessarily mean that they were both to occur as a result of the actions of the same entity.
His preferred interpretation was that the definition should be read to mean that “Retail Prices Index” could be the Index of Retail Prices or any replacement which is adopted by the trustees.
Whilst an appeal to the Supreme Court was refused by the CA, a separate application to appeal the decision was made to the Supreme Court. This was granted and the hearing is scheduled for the summer of 2018.
In British Telecom v BT Pension Scheme Trustees  the High Court considered whether a switch from RPI to CPI could be introduced for revaluation. The BT Scheme rules provided that “The cost of living will be measured by the Government’s published General (All Items) Index of Retail Prices or if this ceases to be published or becomes inappropriate, such other measure as the Principal Company, on consultation with the Trustees, decides.”
BT sought to argue that BT could decide whether RPI had become inappropriate, or not. However, the Court stated that whether RPI has become inappropriate or not was an objective test and there was no power for BT to make such a determination. In addition, the Court also held that the use of RPI was not inappropriate in protecting members benefits from increases in this cost of living. The decision is being appealed.
In Thales UK v Thales Pension Trustees  the governing documentation of the pension scheme provided “if the Government retail prices index for all items is not published or its compilation is materially changed, the Principal Employer, with the agreement of the Trustees, will determine the nearest alternative index to be applied.”
Thales were arguing that RPI had been materially altered by the introduction of the house prices index into RPI. The Court agreed with Thales that RPI had been materially altered as a result, and that the principal employer, with the agreement of the trustees could determine the nearest alternative. However, in this situation, the Court determined that the nearest alternative to RPI was not CPI, but RPI as materially changed. Therefore although RPI had materially changed, due to the specific wording of the Thales scheme, RPI remained as the appropriate Index.
Many schemes were, and continue to be interested in adopting CPI as a means of reducing scheme liabilities and improving the scheme’s funding position, as it (to date) has generally produced a lower uplift to benefits than did RPI. The ability of schemes to use CPI instead of RPI clearly depends upon the precise wording of the rules and the respective powers of the principal employer and the trustees in making any necessary amendments. Many schemes’ revaluation provisions are drafted in terms of reference to the relevant legislative provisions and where this is the case, amendments relating to deferred benefits will not be required. However, indexation provisions are likely to be set out in more detail, and in some cases may refer specifically to RPI. Where rule amendments are required to adopt CPI, any restrictions in the scheme’s power of amendment will need to be taken into account, and CPI-based increases may be possible in respect of future service only.
Given that there are many variations on existing increase and revaluation rules, it is likely that questions such as those outlined above will continue to come before the Courts, and the law will develop accordingly. Whilst general principles can be drawn from these cases, they may be of only limited use for schemes with as yet untested RPI definitions and clearly it is important for legal advice to be taken.
OFAC published a final rule that modifies the Cuban Assets Control Regulations to revoke the so-called "U-turn" authorization.
On 5 September 2019, Professor John McMillan AO’s Final Report (Report) on the operation of the Narcotic Drugs Act 1967 (ND Act) was tabled in Parliament. Section 26A of the ND Act required the Minster to cause a review of the operation of the ND Act to be undertaken.