Pensions Authority gets High Court order due to concerns about company’s finances

Firm to be replaced handles 180 pension schemes with 1,681 members and €180m

The court heard there were 1,681 members involved in the 180 or so schemes
The court heard there were 1,681 members involved in the 180 or so schemes

The Pensions Authority has obtained a High Court order allowing it to replace a company managing some 180 pension schemes, involving €80 million, following concerns about the finances of the firm.

Trustee Principles Ltd will take over the schemes from Source Pensions Administration and Trustee Company for a year, the court heard.

Source Pensions is also not to act as a trustee for another five years unless it makes an application to the court.

Mr Justice David Keane granted the order to James Devlin SC, for the Authority, and there was no objection from Joe Jeffers, for Source Pensions.

READ MORE

The court heard there were 1,681 members involved in the 180 or so schemes.

The court also continued orders made previously preventing Source Pensions, of Warrington Place, Dublin, from disposing of any resources in those schemes.

The court heard an investigation started by the authority is ongoing. It was told the investigation started after two former employees of Source Pensions, including a director, raised concerns under the whistleblowing provision of the 1990 Pensions Act.

They related to the financial position of the firm, the extent of its compliance with its pension obligations towards its own employees, and the extent of compliance with its obligations as administrator/trustee of pension schemes.

The Authority had particular concern about a loan of almost €500,000 from client pension monies to the company.

Source Pensions director Adrian Daly, who controls the firm, confirmed the loan had been taken out but he maintained it was not unauthorised or improper. The authority did not share that view.

The court heard an investigating accountant identified 14 transactions involving the transfer of monies for the alleged company loan. There was also no documentation showing it was a temporary loan or about the payment of interest on it, the court heard.