1 Conflicts of interest [No conflict of interest was reported prior to, or at the commencement of the meeting OR [Insert name] declared a conflict of interest in relation to [Insert details]]. The Trustees agreed to voice any [other] conflict should it arise during the meeting. 2 Notice and quorum It was reported that proper notice had been given to all of the Scheme’s Trustees, the meeting was properly convened and that a quorum was present. [Insert name of chair of the Trustees] (the Chair) declared the meeting open. 3 Apologies [There were no apologies for absence OR [Insert name] sent [his OR her] apologies for [his OR her] absence.] 4 Matters

Pensions analysis: The Deputy Pensions Ombudsman has upheld a complaint that a pension scheme trustee made imprudent investments. Martin Scott of gunnercooke LLP looks at the decision.

This Deed is dated [insert date] BY [insert full name of Trustee] incorporated and registered in [insert country in which the trustee is incorporated] with company number [insert company registered number] whose registered office is at [insert address of registered office] in its capacity as sole trustee of the [insert name of the EBT] Employee Benefit Trust (the Trustee). Background (A) By a trust deed dated [insert date of EBT trust deed] (the Trust Deed), [insert full name of company], incorporated and registered in England and Wales with company number [insert registered number], whose registered office is at [insert registered office address] (the Company) established the [insert name of EBT] Employee Benefit Trust (the EBT). (B) The Company is in negotiations with [insert name of potential buyer] (the Buyer) for a sale of the whole of the issued share

THIS POWER OF ATTORNEY is given on [date] by me [name of donor] of [address of donor]. This Deed PROVIDES: 1 Appointment I appoint [name of attorney] of [address of attorney] to be my attorney for the

Pensions analysis: The Pensions Ombudsman has partly upheld a complaint about the payment of discretionary death benefits. Martin Scott of gunnercooke LLP looks at the decision.

Private Client analysis: Beneficiaries of a Will trust sought the removal of trustees on several grounds, including a breakdown in relations between the parties and trustee hostility. The principal asset in the trust was a shareholding in the deceased's company, and the trustees had removed two of the beneficiaries as directors of the company. The court carried out a detailed analysis of the law and evidence before ordering the removal of two of the four trustees. This court found that removing the two trustees would be in the best interests of the beneficiaries of the trust as a whole, with a view to securing the proper administration of the trust. A professional trustee was appointed to resolve any concern that the management of the company was not subject to proper oversight. They will act alongside two family members as continuing trustees, in line with the deceased's wishes. Written by Alexandra Rogers, legal director at Foot Anstey LLP.

The Pensions Regulator (TPR)’s General Code, which came into force on 28 March 2024, introduces a module entitled ‘Remuneration and fee policy’ that sets out TPR’s expectations for the preparation of a remuneration and fee policy by trustees. While there is no legal obligation to create and maintain such a policy and the General Code does not have force of law, TPR considers such a policy to be a necessary part of establishing and operating an effective system of governance (ESOG), as required by the Occupational Pension Schemes (Governance) (Amendment) Regulations 2018, SI 2018/1103. Failure to have a remuneration and fee policy could therefore be taken into account by a court or tribunal when determining whether a scheme has met the ESOG requirement, unless the scheme can demonstrate they have taken an alternative approach to meet that requirement. For further information on the status of the General Code, see Practice Note: Pension requirement for an effective system of governance, including internal controls (ESOG)—Status of the General Code. For further information on the ESOG requirement generally,

This Checklist should be read alongside Practice Notes: Trusts—disclosure of beneficial ownership information via the Trust Registration Service (TRS) and record-keeping and Trust Registration Service (TRS). See also Practice Notes: Trust Registration Service (TRS)—table of registration requirements and deadlines and Trust Registration Service (TRS)—trusts excluded from registration. These Practice Notes contain guidance on trustees’ obligations imposed as a result of the implementation (in relation to the registration of trusts) of the EU’s Fourth Anti-Money Laundering Directive Directive (EU) 2015/849 (4MLD) through the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017 (MLR 2017), SI 2017/692 and the EU’s Fifth Anti-Money Laundering Directive Directive (EU) 2018/843 (5MLD) through the Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 (MLR 2020), SI 2020/991. In this Checklist, references to MLR 2017, SI 2017/692 include the amendments incorporated as a result of MLR 2020, SI 2020/991 coming into effect, unless otherwise stated. Beneficial owners of a trust include the settlor(s), trustee(s), beneficiaries and anyone else with control over the trust. Potential beneficiaries

This Practice Note is the first of two Practice Notes covering the data protection regime and its application to trustees. In this Practice Note, the regime as it was under the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA 1998) is discussed, along with the competing duties and principles applicable to trustees and how they have been dealt with in recent cases. While DPA 1998 was repealed by the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA 2018), which took effect on 25 May 2018, the regime still applies to historical data breaches, subject access requests (SARs) and other privacy related claims relating to data processing activity that took place before 25 May 2018. The ability to preserve the confidentiality of sensitive information has often been seen as part of the attraction of trust structures. Following the Dawson-Damer v Taylor Wessing case (which has now been heard in the High Court, the Court of Appeal and again in the High Court and the Court of Appeal to deal with certain remitted issues), it is clear

This Practice Note should be read alongside Practice Note: Trustees and data protection—part one. It considers the data protection regime under the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA 2018), the EU General Data Protection Regulation, Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (EU GDPR) which took effect on 25 May 2018 and indeed the UK-specific version of the EU GDPR, which applies in the UK from 11 pm on 31 December 2020 (Retained Regulation (EU) 2016/679, UK GDPR). It also considers equivalent provisions (where relevant) under the former Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA 1998) regime. For more detailed information on DPA 2018, see the Data protection regime subtopic. Data Protection Act 2018 With effect from 25 May 2018, DPA 1998 has been repealed and the UK data protection regime is now consolidated within the GDPR (EU and now UK) and DPA 2018. DPA 2018 is a fairly complex piece of legislation and it is challenging for non-specialists to follow. While the EU GDPR gives EU Member States certain specific opportunities to make provisions for how

Section 31 of the Trustee Act 1925 provides a power to trustees holding property in trust for minors to apply any income from the trust property for or towards the maintenance, education or benefit of the minor and, if the trust assets and income do not vest in the beneficiary upon reaching the age of 18, the income is paid to the beneficiary. In this scenario therefore the beneficiaries, all of whom are over the age of 18, are entitled to the income from

Law360: The pensions industry must take steps to bolster its data security or else put the life savings of millions of pension members at risk, experts warned on 6 August 2024.