RBS pension row: a lesson learnt – but at what cost? By The Lawyer 4 March 2009 13:27 13 December 2015 15:30 Sign in or register to continue reading. It's FREE Sign in Email Password Keep me logged in Forgot your password? Not registered? It's FREE! Register now Register with The Lawyer anon 4 March 2009 at 15:42 infuriating i understand what you’re saying Faith, but it’s just so so so so infuriating. Can’t we please bend the rules just this once? No? I didn’t think so. Lucky Fred. Reply Link S. Berlusconi 4 March 2009 at 16:01 Not confidence inspiring There are lots of reasonable doubts about the government’s commercial acumen – and it having just signed away an enormous pension to an outgoing exec who was a total failure is not an encouraging sign. More worryingly, however, is its willingness to try to use retrospective legislation to overrule a legally binding contract that it itself signed. What country is this, Italy?! Reply Link Frustrated investor 5 March 2009 at 10:00 Rem committees The underlying problem is the notice periods that executives can command. If Freddie could have been dismissed with a very short period of notice his payment on termination would have been lower, and the upfront cost would also have been lower. Freddie also wouldn’t have been able to trade off foregoing a payment for failing to give notice .for an enhanced pension. It is time that rem committees and investor bodies wake up to this problem and shorten notice period for board directors to, say, a month. The directors that approved the arrangement also need to consider whether they have fulfilled their fiduciary duties, and doubtless lawyers acting will consider whether there has been a breach of company law in agreeing a termination enhancement in pension in this manner. Reply Link Anonymous 10 March 2009 at 17:17 Too early to count chickens Retrospective legislation is not necessary as a change in the tax treatment is all that is necessary to cover future payments to the man ,so that most of the pension would go to the government.As no one or very few people have Freds entitlement it is difficult to see who is going to complain Reply Link emplaw.co.uk 11 March 2009 at 01:48 Can those who approved Sir Fred’s pension be sued by shareholders? The note from “Frustrated Inverstor” says “The directors that approved the arrangement also need to consider whether they have fulfilled their fiduciary duties ….”. This could be a productive line to follow. Even the threat of action against them as individuals would be likely to worry members of remuneration committees. That might have a more beneficial effect than any amount of well intentioned but toothless government warnings. Reply Link Name Email Cancel reply Threaded commenting powered by interconnect/it code.