You are currently viewing our desktop site, do you want to download our app instead?
Moneyweb Android App Moneyweb iOS App Moneyweb Mobile Web App
Join our mailing list to receive top business news every weekday morning.

Pension funds’ landmark legal victory and what it means

Regulation affecting billions in unclaimed benefits declared invalid.
Court ruling funds them to use this money in other ways, if they can't find the member. Image: Shutterstock.

A watershed ruling by the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) in Bloemfontein on November 2 represents a positive upshot for pension funds in South Africa and could see members benefitting from billions of rand in unclaimed funds.

Pension funds have been legally challenging the prescriptive Regulation 35(4) addition to the Pension Funds Act (PFA) around actuarial surpluses and contingency reserve accounts for years.

Moneyweb Insider INSIDERGOLD

Subscribe for full access to all our share and unit trust data tools, our award-winning articles, and support quality journalism in the process.

Choose an option:

R63 per month
R630 per year SAVE R126

You will be redirected to a checkout page.
To view all features and options, click here.

A monthly subscription is charged pro rata, based on the day of purchase. This is non-refundable and includes a R5 once-off sign-up fee.
A yearly subscription is refundable within 14 days of purchase and includes a 365-day membership.

Click here for more information.

Now a trio – Hortors Pension Fund, Southern Sun Group Retirement Fund and the Vrystaatse Munisipale Pensioenfonds – have won their respective cases on the matter, which were heard jointly at the SCA in August.

The court ruling allows them to use this money in other ways if they can’t find the member.

Read: Half of South Africans are unprepared for retirement

This followed the funds initially losing in the Gauteng High Court, with applications to secure an order declaring Regulation 35(4) invalid being dismissed. The Hortors application was against the Financial Sector Conduct Authority (FSCA) as the first respondent and the minister of finance as the second respondent.

The Southern Sun Group Retirement Fund’s case was against ‘the Registrar of Pension Funds and Others’ while Vrystaatse Munisipale Pensioenfonds’s case was against ‘the Minister of Finance and another’.

Johan Esterhuizen, a partner in the pension funds department at law firm Shepstone & Wylie, represented Hortors. He tells Moneyweb that the SCA decision is of “great significance” for the pension funds industry as the regulation in question has been a bugbear for over a decade.

“The [regulation] change came as far back as 2001, but only became an issue in later years,” he says. “When older pension funds could not find certain members, this regulation called for their portion to go into contingency reserve accounts. However, pension funds have been questioning what happens to the money if there have been exhaustive steps to find such members over several years.

“Regulation 35(4) essentially meant this money [actuarial surpluses] stays in contingency reserve accounts in perpetuity,” he adds.

“The consequence of the SCA’s recent judgment is that this regulation has now been found to be invalid [as it is beyond the finance minister’s power and not in accordance with the Pension Funds Act 24 of 1956] and thus is unenforceable,” notes Esterhuizen.

He says this means pension fund boards are now empowered to decide how such funds can be used, including using a portion to pay top-up benefits to other members or even offering a ‘contribution holiday’ to current members.

“This can run into billions of rand [between the various pension funds] but different funds can opt to do different things … The critical thing is that pension funds will still be liable if members that previously could not be traced do come forward. The liability never goes away,” he adds.

Read: Threat of prescription is overstated: Asisa

“Pension funds will need to keep a reasonable amount in contingency reserves, but the SCA ruling means that pension fund boards are not disallowed from taking money out of contingency reserve accounts … Such a move will still need to be approved by relevant authorities, like the FSCA,” he points out.

“We have clarity at long last on the issue … It has been something the pension fund sector has wanted certainty on for a long time. The question around actuarial surpluses and contingency reserve accounts has been asked by many funds over many years,” Esterhuizen says.

The Batseta Council of Retirement Funds for South Africa (Batseta) is happy about the landmark ruling on the issue.

“Batseta welcomes the judgment of the SCA,” CEO of the council Anne-Marie D’Alton said in response to a Moneyweb query. “The judgment is also [a] testament that South Africa’s judicial system is healthy and [is] still working well.”

“The board of trustees of a retirement fund has a fiduciary duty to care for the financial affairs or wellbeing of the fund and its members. The judgment clarifies and solidifies the decision-making and discretionary powers of the boards of trustees as the custodians of retirement fund saving,” she noted.

Read: Hands off my pension

D’Alton said the judgment also ensures that employers of defined benefit (DB) funds – especially closed funds that guarantee an employee a specific income level at retirement – can meet their obligations as promised.

“The most important impact is that it makes DB funds more solvent. It also allows [pension] funds to use the funds to benefit members in various ways enabling a fund to pay bonuses [or] increase fund credits or risk reserves,” she added.

Despite the ruling, D’Alton said Batseta does not believe it fully settles the matter.

“Unclaimed benefits are a blot against the retirement fund industry. [They] will continue to present challenges. It is a legacy matter plagued by issues of poor record-keeping, lack of member communication, and [lack of] awareness by dependents that such benefits exist,” she pointed out.

“Innovative solutions are required to ensure that members or beneficiaries can be traced and, in the event that they cannot be traced, that the community at large benefits as a whole,” she said.

In a note published on November 6, commercial law giant Bowmans hailed the judgment as “a substantial step in the right direction”.

The memo (written by Deirdre Phillips , Graham Damant and David Geral) said the ruling “goes a long way to resolving the long-standing problem of unclaimed benefits being locked up in funds where there is no realistic possibility of them ever being claimed”.

However, the firm warned of the potential impact of the promulgation of the new Conduct of Financial Institutions Act (CoFI).

“It appears that the [SCA] victory may be short lived if CoFI comes into effect in its current form next year as is currently planned,” said Bowmans.

“It is worth noting … that what funds may do with unclaimed benefits post promulgation of the CoFI Act is yet to be seen.”

The group pointed out that the second draft CoFI Bill was published on September 29 for public comment by October 30.

“The CoFI Bill contains significant proposed changes to the PFA, including inserting section 37A(5) to the PFA [to be renamed the ‘Retirement Funds Act’]. The proposed new section reads ‘unclaimed benefits may not be reduced or utilised for any other purpose by a fund’ … An unclaimed benefit is like any other benefit and could include unclaimed surplus benefits,” it explained.

“The ‘other purpose’ referred to in the proposed section 37A(5) is not clear, however, it could be argued that if section 37A(5) comes into effect [in its current form], that funds will not be entitled to utilise unclaimed surplus benefits for the benefit of former members who have been traced, irrespective of the fact that a fund may be of the view that it would be highly unlikely that a beneficiary will come forward to claim the benefit,” Bowmans added.

With regards to CoFI, D’Alton said Batseta hopes policymakers will take into consideration the principles set out in the SCA judgment.

“The consultation process on the CoFI Bill is still underway and Batseta will comment on it. However, should a centralised unclaimed benefit fund be established it will be prudent to ensure that it is managed by an independent governance structure,” she said.

“Alternative and innovative ways should be investigated to ensure that untraced members, beneficiaries, and communities’ benefit through sustainable investments that supports economic development in South Africa.”

AUTHOR PROFILE

COMMENTS   12

Sort by:
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Top voted

You must be signed in to comment.

SIGN IN SIGN UP

Its called theft if you take something that is not yours. Especially if you are a South African Financial institution.

THEY ARE ALL A BUNCH OF THIEVES.

This is like petrol on a fire.

So the courts rule in a certain way and in your view financial institutions are thieves! Surely your gripe is with the ruling?

All the insurance companies will have the platitude lines in their ethos statements about ‘helping you’ and ‘trust’.

Well they do not. They just want your money.

The “helping you” sounds very similar to sars ad wording of “at your service” – my question is always what “service” is sars talking about? – so far over decades as taxpayer, i was just the jersey cow and sars the milking machine – suppose the milking part was the “service” they are advertising and nothing more

government should have said (and probably should now) that instead of reserves, the money is transferred out of the pension fund to a separate fund set up solely for this purpose. The concept of ignoring an actual liability is nuts.

Just because it is law does not make it right.

Every south african should send their details and their parents information to see if these pensions belong to any of them, a call upon the public is required by the public broadcaster/s.

Even if someone is owed R10, if they think it is due to them they will go after it.

This info should be made accessible. Given privacy concerns, why not create a special vehicle, to which all funds must declare the lost / unfound beneficiaries details and entitlements. Third parties (claimants), then submit, their information and if there is a match, you get sent to the relevant fund. Right now it seems like you have to know where the lost (likely deceased) had all their money to be able to knock on the right doors, which is ludicrous. Well it suits the fund to hold onto the loot, so I guess its clear why the system is like this…

“Just because it is law does not make it right.”
– So true, well put.

Maybe I should not have deleted that email about the ‘unclaimed inheritance from a distant relative’ 😉

”Qui vole un oeuf vole un boeuf” (who steals an egg steals a cow)

Funny how you get treated when you contact your ex-employer (Volksas Merchant- come, Absa Merchant), with a request to see if the surplus funds that they held, could be traced. I did it on behalf of a couple of my ex-colleagues.

Thet refused ”point-blank” to assist in tracing same, and advised us to contact the funds. There are a plethora of funds after the Absa One and Two were set up, and any help from the ex-employes would have been imperative.

“The most important impact is that it makes DB funds more solvent. It also allows [pension] funds to use the funds to benefit members in various ways enabling a fund to pay bonuses [or] increase fund credits or risk reserves,” she added.

Most important word there is “bonuses”

They can use the money in other ways if they cannot find the member. How much effort do you support is going to go into finding the member if they know that they can keep the money to themselves if they don’t?

There is a very good reason that I don’t use pension funds at all. Employee pension funds should be completely discretionary. The legal mandate should be that a worker must prove that they are making sufficient retirement savings contributions per year into funds of their own discretion – not this legalised theft that forces employees into funds administrated by large institutions that rip them with fees.

Covid19 has revealed some truths about our very much intertwined investment and insurance industries in South Africa. They are highly unethical and immoral despite claiming the opposite in their marketing.

a Future scenario in court: “but your honour we could not trace the members in the past 6 months. So we decided to use the funds …………..”

Questions “Am I wrong?
“Or not?”
“Or am I sinical?”

I know of a retirement fund which keeps all unclaimed moneys in a separate fund. Why can’t all of them do this?

Question: What does the rules of a retirement fund allow it to do? Should’nt all funds have a standard rule wrt this, ie the unclaimed benefits should go in a separate fund? Come on FSCA, make your move!

End of comments.

LATEST CURRENCIES  

USD / ZAR
GBP / ZAR
EUR / ZAR

Podcasts

NEWSLETTERS WEB APP SHOP PORTFOLIO TOOL TRENDING CPD HUB

Follow us:

Search Articles:Advanced Search
Click a Company: