Executive scheme definition

View the related practice notes about Executive scheme

Retirement schemes for executives—UURBS, FURBS and EFRBS

Just as executives tend to enjoy better salary packages than the ordinary workforce, so is it often the case that they receive better pension provision from their employers. Executive retirement benefit provision can take a variety of forms, including:•special ‘executive’ sections of group-wide occupational pension schemes offering more generous benefits than the ‘main section’•executive-only (registered) occupational pension schemes•'top-up' trust-based (unregistered) pension arrangements, and•unfunded contractual pension promisesPrior to A-day (6 April 2006), when the current registered pension scheme tax regime came into force, retirement benefits for executives in excess of the then applicable benefit limits imposed under the tax approved pensions regime were commonly provided through either:•funded unapproved retirement benefit schemes (FURBS), or•unfunded unapproved retirement benefit schemes (UURBS)FURBS and UURBS each possessed some tax advantages and could be operated effectively as top-up arrangements to executives’ existing occupational pension schemes.Since A-day, FURBS and UURBS may be regarded as funded and unfunded Employer Financed Retirement Benefit Schemes (EFRBS) respectively. EFRBS are not subject to the tax regime applicable to registered pension schemes under...

The duty of pension scheme trustees to act in the best interests of beneficiaries

The duty of pension scheme trustees to act in the best interests of beneficiaries It is often thought that pensions scheme trustees owe a duty to act in the best interests of the beneficiaries of the scheme. This Practice Note explores the origins of the so-called duty, its scope and application today. The origin of the duty—Cowan v Scargill Cowan v Scargill involved a dispute between the trustees of the Mineworkers’ Pension Scheme. Of ten trustees, five were appointed by the National Coal Board, and five were appointed by the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM). The issue before the court was whether the NUM trustees were in breach of their fiduciary duties in refusing to approve a proposed investment plan unless it was amended so as to: • prohibit any increase in overseas investment • provide for the withdrawal of existing overseas investments at the most opportune time, and • prohibit investment in energies which were in direct competition with coal The legal adviser to the Board had...