Hewitt blasts UK Pensions Regulator over transfers

Business for Democracy and ASBC Lead Effort to Overturn Citizens United v. FEC

The Business for Democracy Campaign, which the American Sustainable Business Council is spearheading in partnership with Free Speech for People is tackling the compelling issue of corporate contributions to political campaigns.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United v. FEC decision on January 21, 2010 allows corporations to spend unlimited funds to support or oppose candidates for political office, overturning campaign finance laws in place for decades. The Business for Democracy campaign is an initiative of business leaders and their companies who believe this ruling is in direct conflict with American democratic principles and a serious threat to good government. The campaign supports the four members of the Supreme Court and the 80 percent of Americans who disagree with the decision (Washington Post poll, Feb. 17, 2010).

If you'd like your business to join this effort, you can sign the statement of support here or here.

Hewitt blasts UK Pensions Regulator over transfers

Hewitt blasts ‘presumption of guilt’ in TPR statement on transfers
UK – Hewitt Associates has struck back at the UK Pensions Regulator (TPR), saying the watchdog’s recently published guidance on incentivised transfers was permeated by the “presumption of guilt”. 16/07/10 10:53

Talking Point: Does the EU need more debate on pensions?

The European Commission has initiated a four-month consultation on European pensions with the publication of a G reen Paper on adequate, sustainable and safe European pension systems that poses a series of questions on how the EU can contribute to the solutions.

It takes a holistic view of existing pensions and looks at topics including longer working lives, the internal market for pensions’ mobility across the EU, gaps in EU regulation, the future solvency regime for pension funds and EU governance.

But is the EU right to open the debate across such a wide range of topics or should it be more focused? Is there a need to look at pension solvency regimes? Or is the G reen Paper just another delay in the ongoing reform of pensions?

If you have a comment you would like to share with IPE readers on this issue, email Jim Robinson at jim.robinson@ipe.com