Sir Philip Green vs Select committee

[Wills2]

The issue here is the purchaser didn't care about the pension issue because they never intended to deal with it, buy it for £1 rest as much cash from it as possible then ditch or get found out.

That should have been as clear as day to the seller, which it probably was hence all the hue and cry now.

I'm sure the sale was conducted within the law but it's clear to see what the aims were and the outcome.

There was never enough money on the table to turn that business around but there didn't need to be.....

[Welshbeef]

sidicks said:

Welshbeef said:

Not according to this:-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/04/26/bhs...

Except in very exceptional circumstances...

But what is or isn't defined?

Does it mean only when a company goes bust? In which case it's possibly every scheme or is it only big ones in which case why is that fair? Or is it only when a previous owner actually does have some cash worth going after?

If you know th legal definition of Exceptional circumstances please share otherwise it's loose and down to the lawyers to argue the toss or prove is a grey area but this instance isn't quite so grey.

[sidicks]

Welshbeef said:

But what is or isn't defined?

Does it mean only when a company goes bust? In which case it's possibly every scheme or is it only big ones in which case why is that fair? Or is it only when a previous owner actually does have some cash worth going after?

If you know th legal definition of Exceptional circumstances please share otherwise it's loose and down to the lawyers to argue the toss or prove is a grey area but this instance isn't quite so grey.

Basically, unless something dodgy has happened, as far as I'm aware.

[Welshbeef]

sidicks said:

Basically, unless something dodgy has happened, as far as I'm aware.

So why is PG even considering paying in? By considering it it indicates guilt or uncertainty.


As far as I've seen he sold the company legally, took dividends from retained profits when the company was flying and as it happened the fund in large surplus (though that's irrelevant).

[sidicks]

Welshbeef said:

So why is PG even considering paying in? By considering it it indicates guilt or uncertainty.

No, I'm sure he's just thinking abut the big picture and his reputation.

Welshbeef said:

As far as I've seen he sold the company legally, took dividends from retained profits when the company was flying and as it happened the fund in large surplus (though that's irrelevant).

Agreed, based on my limited understanding of this case.

Edited by sidicks on Tuesday 26th July 20:11

[Welshbeef]

sidicks said:

Welshbeef said:

So why is PG even considering paying in? By considering it it indicates guilt or uncertainty.

No, I'm sure he's just thinking abut the big picture and his reputation.

Welshbeef said:

As far as I've seen he sold the company legally, took dividends from retained profits when the company was flying and as it happened the fund in large surplus (though that's irrelevant).

Agreed.

But how many years would £600m take to earn?

[sidicks]

Welshbeef said:

But how many years would £600m take to earn?

£600m?
For what purpose?
By whom?

??

[Welshbeef]

sidicks said:

Welshbeef said:

But how many years would £600m take to earn?

£600m?
For what purpose?
By whom?

??

£600m is the current numbers being talked about that green needs to pay.
To replenish the £600 m he will have to pay to cover the pension gap - unless he is happy to be £600m worse off
By Green

[sidicks]

Welshbeef said:

£600m is the current numbers being talked about that green needs to pay.
To replenish the £600 m he will have to pay to cover the pension gap - unless he is happy to be £600m worse off
By Green

So the proposal is that he funds the full deficit on a buy-out basis? Seems unduly generous, but I guess if you're a multi-billionaire...

[Welshbeef]

sidicks said:

Welshbeef said:

£600m is the current numbers being talked about that green needs to pay.
To replenish the £600 m he will have to pay to cover the pension gap - unless he is happy to be £600m worse off
By Green

So the proposal is that he funds the full deficit on a buy-out basis? Seems unduly generous, but I guess if you're a multi-billionaire...

Yep that's what that MP was mouthing off about on R4. Otherwise those existing pensioners take a 10% cut now he cannot simply buy those out under the rules as the remaining pensioners or those yet to draw may get less so it's buy the lot out now or nout!

[turbobloke]

Welshbeef said:

Can you clarify your perception between Sloppy and good due diligence.

There are lots of credible guides online.

In this case it looks as though it may cut both ways.

As vendor Green seems to be surprised to find that Chappell allegedly exaggerated his credentials prior to sealing the deal.

As buyer Chappell allegedly met Green's representative...only once (best read in an 'Allo 'Allo! French resistance accent).

[sidicks]

Welshbeef said:

Yep that's what that MP was mouthing off about on R4. Otherwise those existing pensioners take a 10% cut now he cannot simply buy those out under the rules as the remaining pensioners or those yet to draw may get less so it's buy the lot out now or nout!

Plenty of schemes choose to buy out the liabilities in respect of pensioners, weakening the fund but given longer time to address the resulting deficit. That probably does;t work for a company in bankruptcy though!

[ninja-lewis]

Jockman said:

RYH64E said:

sidicks said:

hornetrider said:

Oh, that's fine then. You can suck all the money out of a vast business so it has no cash reserves to survive any downturn in trade, putting thousands out of jobs and their pensions at risk.

No worries.

Sounds like you don't understand how businesses or DB pension schemes work, in which case probably best NOT to comment on a thread about business and pensions schemes...!

The underlying problem is that traditional, defined benefit, employer funded pension schemes are completely unaffordable in the current era. It was ok when people retired at 65 and died at 70, with decent investment returns on invested funds, but that's not the case now. I don't know what the answer is, but expecting employers to contribute ever greater amounts into a pension black hole isn't it.

Agreed. Especially when the Employer is HMG.

Indeed. A case in point is Royal Mail. Between 1996-98, the government took out nearly as much cash as it had taken out in the previous 10 years. All told they received £2.5 billion between 1981 and 1999 (not adjusted for inflation). When the Royal Mail pension scheme went into deficit along with many other DB schemes in the early 2000s, the business had no cash to fund it nor invest in much needed modernisation.

The only difference vs BHS is that the private sector operates within a hard budget constraint; in other words insolvency law.

[Halb]

crankedup said:

We have a long way to drop until we are back to mill owners morals but sure as hell we do seem to be on that trajectory.

I hope we are.

[Europa1]

I shall be very interested to see how the Goldman Sachs angle unwinds in all this - they weren't formally engaged by Philip Green (deal too small), yet one of their partners seems to have effectively vouched for Dominic Chappelle - Philip Green told the Committees he wouldn't have done the deal unless Chappelle had passed Goldman Sachs' "sniff test".

[Lucas CAV]

Halb said:

crankedup said:

We have a long way to drop until we are back to mill owners morals but sure as hell we do seem to be on that trajectory.

I hope we are.

? Why?

[Murcielago_Boy]

Europa1 said:

I shall be very interested to see how the Goldman Sachs angle unwinds in all this - they weren't formally engaged by Philip Green (deal too small), yet one of their partners seems to have effectively vouched for Dominic Chappelle - Philip Green told the Committees he wouldn't have done the deal unless Chappelle had passed Goldman Sachs' "sniff test".

PG is burning EVERYONE around him in an effort to deflect blame from himself.
Even his mates at GS. He'll regret that. Anyone else in the City want to work with him?

[Countdown]

Welshbeef said:

So why is PG even considering paying in?

So that he can hang around with models and not be considered a snivelling little shyster.

[Murcielago_Boy]

I think PG should be made to pay whatever the Pension Trustees were asking him to pay at the time. Not a penny more.
Why? Because that was the extent of his responsibility?

If the market goes to hell, surely a corporate pension sponsor can't be held responsible for plugging the deficit then? (especially if they've made contributions in line with what the trustees have demanded). Otherwise you have an unlimited liability...?

[sidicks]

Murcielago_Boy said:

I think PG should be made to pay whatever the Pension Trustees were asking him to pay at the time. Not a penny more.
Why? Because that was the extent of his responsibility?

If the market goes to hell, surely a corporate pension sponsor can't be held responsible for plugging the deficit then? (especially if they've made contributions in line with what the trustees have demanded). Otherwise you have an unlimited liability...?

In effect the sponsor does have unlimited liability as they have responsibility to pay the benefit promises made. In practice people don't live for ever.

The company sponsor can influence the trustees on the investment strategy to ensure that they are not unduly exposed to markets 'going to hell'.