社会工作毕业论文之外文翻译.doc

本科生毕业设计 (论文)外 文 翻 译原 文 标 题Pension Puzzle译 文 标 题养老金问题作者所在系别文法系作者所在专业社会工作作者所在班级作 者 姓 名作 者 学 号指导教师姓名指导教师职称完 成 时 间2013年12月北华航天工业学院教务处制译文标题养老金问题原文标题Pension Puzzle作 者Craig Harris译 名 克雷格哈里斯国 籍加拿大原文出处2012年11月加拿大保险公司 在20008年经济危机后，赞助养老金计划的私人公司或组织成了主要受害者之一。而房地产市场和金融服务行业受到了多方的关注，与此同时，养老金也受到了大幅的冲击。2008年，在36个国家的私人养老金计划中，包括经济合作与发展组织总损失了23%的真实价值或者一个惊人的5.4万亿美元。即使在今天，养老金计划都在努力筹资水平。去年八月份公布的一份报告中显示，评级机构DBRS审查了养老金计划以前定义的451条好处，并显示了在2011年年底，联合资金赤字为3890亿美元。回顾过去一年，有超过三分之二的计划由于一个显著的保证金而弄得资金不足。DBRS在该报告中指出，“为了让公司能够解决这一资金差距，雇主将保持高之供款，现在已经有许多计划进入了资金状况的危险区域”。这种“危险地带”有一些影响。其中一个重要方面就是那些有可能参与既是“雇主”，又是与退休金计划有关的“管理员”的董事和高级职员的责任。在普通法的诉讼演变中，只是进一步暴露了高级管理人员和董事会潜在的养老责任。理查德约翰斯顿，一个加拿大铭德律师事务所多伦多办事处的合伙人说，“我认为养老金暴露并不是董事或官员一致赞赏关于养老基金的决定”。约翰斯顿说，“有一系列复杂的关于公司怎样解决这一问题的依据”。一些人认为这些问题使董事的迅速出现在雷达屏幕上和高级职员因为高度的激进主义计划而获得利益。风险管理者和律师越来越意识到养老金负债的风险，他们建议伊恩金，托马斯黄金Pettingill 律师事务所的创始合伙人。“由于最近的经济结果低迷以及面临的金融问题退休金计划：受益人是越来越审议政府的计划，所以养老金治理赢了的更多的关注。”法律义务有一些责任，就是董事和高级职员在面对有关私人养老金的计划时，应该要阐明是通过法规还是普通法。许多省和联邦养老保险法让董事们为他们公司犯下的罪行承担责任，比如，罪行可能包括没有提交所需供款的养老基金，或者是对信任的员工代表举行捐款。董事可以被追究的个人责任有巨额罚款，以及计划要求偿还的金额。金指出，在安大略省，一个计划管理者在初次违反使用养老金法规时，可以被罚十万美元。普通法也看到了最近的事态发展。“在最后四年里，董事和高级职员们惊奇地发现潜在的个人法律责任，他们可能会因为习惯法而招致，”注意玛丽皮卡德，是多伦多费雷泽米尔卡斯格兰律师事务所的合伙人。“这是一个正在进行，不断发展的领域，特别是对于那些处于“破产地带”的公司。如果他们有一个明确的退休计划，那么，当它涉及到董事和高级职员时，我们会发现这是一个重要的问题之一。在这一领域的主要案件涉及到了斯莱特刚的破产。在2008年，安大略省上诉法院决定，本质上允许对公司董事及与公司的固定福利养老金计划短缺有关的高级职员进行索赔起诉。这样，Morneau Sobeco有限公司的合作伙伴美国怡安保险咨询公司也涉及到了关于精算假设用于养老金计划的管理上的争端。“在安大略省上诉斯莱特刚的这一决定暴露了10名董事、高级职员和雇员可能没有因为个人债务为2000万美元而对资不抵债的斯莱特刚或其大部分资产进行有意义的追索，”约翰斯特在对此案进行解说笔记。“这是一个对于不承认和履行受托义务退休金计划可以向主要义务人（董事和高级职员们）公开的提醒”。管理者和/或雇佣者在这种情况下，其中一个关键问题是作为斯莱特刚养老金计划的“管理员”而不是“雇主”的董事和高级职员的受信问题。约翰斯顿指出，安大略省和加拿大其他省份在退休金计划的指定管理员方面实行受托人职责。但是对于大多数的计划，指定管理者也是雇佣者。这种所谓“两顶帽子”的方法通过了法院的区别，那就是雇主在确定退休金福利的职责并改变那些好处可以免费受托。然而，当雇佣者（董事及高级职员）充当计划管理人时，它就接受了受托义务。例如斯莱特刚可以模糊雇主与管理者之间的界线，制造其潜在的利益冲突和责任。“其中一个斯莱特刚带来的问题就是当涉及到管理养老金计划时，董事及高级职员们就会产生内部矛盾，”皮卡德说。“他们对利益相关者有责任，也对退休金计划的成员有责任。在日常水平上，那么冲突可能会非常的困难，”她补充道。一些发起人建议，对与退休金负债不断曝光这一潜在问题，应由全面的风险管理计划来处理。金说，风险管理是关于教育及声音程序的执行。他建议，“董事及参与养老金计划管理的人员应该通过加拿大年锦监理协会管理局的管治指引及在关于他们法律责任的相关法律上的自我教育来熟悉自己”。亚历山德拉北，费雷泽米尔卡斯格兰律师事务所的合伙人说，“对于养老金，董事及高级管理人员在正式文件里应要坚持一个明确的管理方针来概述”。“董事亦应检讨任何精算评估，审计报告和养老金委员会会议的会议记录”。保险的作用保险，在董事会和高级职员（D&O）责任与受托责任的形式里，在解决养老金负债难题上也能起到一定的作用。D&O政策在保险提供者给予的承保范围、条件及不包括的项目的条款之间有着显着的变化。例如，常见的排斥，即在D&O涉及到赔偿下，根据规约或普通法对利用养老金信托而造成的与养老金负债相关的法律责任的董事或职员进行起诉。金说，“一般情况下，D&O政策排除了退休金负债，因此，受托责任政策是一个更适合的选项。”“然而，所有政策将包含那些将影响保险项目的除外责任。例如，不太可能故意处理不当或者罚款会被覆盖在保险政策之下”。受托责任保险为组织提供具体保护及为养老金和福利计划的治理、管理和实施提供个人负责。关键是要获得正确的咨询，即关于组织所规定的覆盖范围性质“有可能被附加到受托义务的D&O保单上或者有可能需要去购买独立的受托责任保险。无论是哪种方式，当着眼于保险范围是，受托人需要将其至于首位或中心位置上。”约翰斯顿说，“对于组织所规定的保险范围的性质，我们有必要去得到适当的意见。”“有可能被附加范围到D&O受托义务政策或者有可能需要去购买独立的受托责任保险。无论是哪种方式，当看到保险范围时，受托人都应将其置于首位和中心位置来对待。”皮卡德报道，在最近几个月，对于受托责任保险的要求，她看到了一个上升的趋势。她评论，“那似乎没有任何明确的答案或者关于覆盖面存在或所需保护的标准做法”。“这是随着经济人的。一个客户问我他们应该能从金融保险上得到多少钱。我说，对于整个养老金计划的金额来说，这是一个潜在的风险”。受教育约翰孙说，当谈到退休金负债时，他认为对于保险范围以及来自保险公司和其经纪人方面的风险和条款，人们有必要接受更多的教育。他说，“我觉得应该有更多关于承保范围下的那些政策的信息。”“那些营销保险的人应该明白董事及高级职员在养老金计划下是存在风险的以及他们是如何被牵扯或不被牵扯进来的”。这些需求在未来几年可能会变得更加迫切，因为养老金计划发展与资金不足的问题仍存在着矛盾。约翰斯顿说，养老金诉讼的焦点传统上一直是固定收益养老金，但定额供款计划在其中增加了较为受欢迎计划管理员并且为受益人提供了更多的投资选择，这样就可以创建更为显著的风险展望未来。约翰斯顿说，“当你看到的这些计划时，它已是很多年以后，人们看到的关于他们自己的投资了，到那时候，那些人要么接近或者已退休了。”“他们可能会质疑自己选择投资的项目，特别是那些默认即已提供的投资项目没有选项被受益人给采取。与过去相关的投资决定已做出并且该决定将会暴露在公众眼下。到了那时，你就会希望有一个成文的政策和适当的程序了。”另一些人则认为，在今后的实践当中，养老金负债和正在进行的诉讼可能会起到一定的作用，即提高人们的认识和形成一个更好的管理方式。皮卡德说，“我觉得我们会因为这种混论和不确定性而将会看到一个更好的养老金治理计划。”她补充道，“最终。养老金计划的成员将会得到更好的服务”。金说，“但愿，在加拿大崛起的养老金诉讼会激励董事们密切关注计划受益人自己的法律义务。”“更好的养老金治理将意味着对于管理员来说责任更少了，而对于计划受益人来说却有一个好的结果”。 One of the prime casualties in the aftermath of the 2008 economic crisis was the sponsored pension plan of a private company or organization. While the housing market and financial services industry received much of the attention during that period, pensions also took a sharp hit.In 2008, private pension plans in the 36 countries that comprise the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development lost 23% of their real value on aggregate, or a staggering $5.4 trillion Even today, pension plans are struggling with funding levels. In a report released last August, ratings agency DBRS reviewed 451 defined benefits pension plans in North America and showed a combined funding deficit of $389 billion at the end of 2011. More than two-thirds of plans reviewed in the past year were underfunded by a significant margin. In order for companies to address this funding gap, employers will have to maintain high levels of contributions, as many plans have now entered the danger zone of funded status, DBRS noted in the report. This danger zone has several ramifications. One key facet is the liability of directors and officers, who may be involved as both employers and administrators related to the pension plan. Evolving litigation in common law has only served to further expose senior managers and Boards of Directors to potential pension liability. I dont think the pension exposure is uniformly appreciated by directors or officers making decisions about pension funds, says Richard Johnston, a partner in Fasken Martineau LLPs Toronto office. There is a range of sophistication in terms of how this issue is addressed by companies, Johnston says. Some argue that these concerns are rapidly emerging onto the radar screen for directors and officers because of the heightened activism of plan beneficiaries. Risk managers and lawyers are becoming increasingly aware of the risk of pension liability, suggests Ian Gold, founding partner of Thomas Gold Pettingill LLP Pension governance is more of a concern as a result of the recent economic downturn and the financial troubles facing pension plans: beneficiaries are increasingly scrutinizing the administration of the plan.OBLIGATED BY LAW There are several obligations that directors and officers face regarding private pension plans, spelled out by statute or common law. Many provincial and federal pension laws make directors liable for offences their corporations commit. For example, offences may include failure to submit required contributions to the pension fund or to hold contributions in trust on the employees behalf Directors can be held personally liable for substantial fines, as well as amounts required to reimburse the plan. As Gold points out, in Ontario a plan administrator can be fined $100,000 for a first offence in breaching an applicable pension statute. The common law has also seen several recent developments. In the last four years, directors and officers have been surprised to see potential personal liability they might incur due to common law, notes Mary Picard, a partner with Fraser Milner Casgrain LLP in Toronto. This is an ongoing, evolving area of litigation, particularly for companies that are in the zone of insolvency If they have a defined pension plan, that is one of the top questions we see when it comes to directors and officers. A leading case in this area involves the insolvency of Slater Steel. In a 2008 decision, the Court of Appeal for Ontario essentially allowed a claim to proceed against corporate directors and officers related to a shortfall in the companys defined benefits pension plan. The case, Morneau Sobeco Ltd. Partnership v.Aon Consulting Inc., also involved disputes regarding actuarial assumptions used in the administration of the pension plan The decision in the Ontario Court of Appeal in Slater Steel exposed 10 directors, officers and employees to possible personal liability of $20 million with no meaningful recourse against the insolvent Slater Steel or its assets, Johnston notes in a commentary on the case. This is a reminder that failure to recognize and fulfill fiduciary obligations for a pension plan can expose (directors and officers) to substantial personal liability.ADMINISTRATOR AND/OR EMPLOYER One of the critical issues in this case was the fiduciary obligation of the directors and officers as administrators of Slater Steels pension plan, as opposed to employers. As Johnston notes, Ontario and other Canadian provinces impose fiduciary duties on the designated administrator of a pension plan. But for most plans, the designated administrator is also the employer. This so-called two hats approach adopted by the courts distinguishes that an employer may be free of fiduciary duties in determining pension benefits and changing those benefits. However when the employer (directors and officers) acts as a plan administrator, it accepts fiduciary obligations. Cases such as Slater Steel can blur the lines between employer and administrator, creating potential conflicts of interest and liability. One of the issues that Slater brought out is that directors and officers have an inherent conflict when it comes to administering a pension plan, Picard says. They owe a duty to the stakeholders of the corporation and also a duty to members of the pension plan. On a day-to-day level, that conflict can be very difficult, she adds.The potential for increased exposure to pension liability should be met with a comprehensive risk management program, several sources recommend. Risk management is about education and the implementation of sound procedures, Gold says. Directors and officers who are involved in the administration of a pension plan should be familiarizing themselves with the Canadian Association of Pension Supervisory Authoritys governance guidelines and educating themselves on the relevant law with respect to their legal duties, he advises. With respect to pensions, directors and officers should insist on a clear governance policy outlined in a formal document, says Alexandra North, an associate with Fraser Milner Casgrain LLP. Directors should also review any actuarial evaluations, audit reports and minutes of pension committee meetings.ROLE OF INSURANCEInsurance, in the form of directors and officers (D&O) liability and fiduciary liability, can also play a role in addressing the pension liability puzzle. D&O policies can vary significantly among insurance providers in terms of coverage, terms and exclusions. For example, a common exclusion under D&O involves claims against a director or officer in relation to pension liability caused by a breach of duties imposed on a pension fiduciary under statute or common law.In general, D&O policies exclude pension habifity and, therefore, a fiduciary liability policy is a more appropriate option, says Gold. However, all policies will contain exclusions that will affect coverage. For example, it is unlikely that willful misconduct or a fine would be covered under an insurance policy.Fiduciary liability insurance provides specific protection for organizations and individuals responsible for the governance, management and administration of pension and benefit plans.It is essential to obtain proper advice with regard to the nature of the coverage required by an organization. There may be add-on coverage to a D&O policy for fiduciary obligations or there may be a need to purchase separate fiduciary liability insurance. Either way, the word fiduciary needs to be front and centre when looking at insurance coverage.There is a need to get proper advice as to the nature of the coverage required by an organization, Johnston says. There may be add-on coverage to a D&O policy for fiduciary obligations or there may be a need to purchase separate fiduciary liability insurance. Either way, the word fiduciary needs to be front and centre when looking at insurance coverage. Picard reports she has seen an upswing in requests for fiduciary liability insurance in recent months. There does not seem to be any clear answers or standard practices regarding what coverage exists or the amount of protection required, she comments. This has to be worked out with the broker. One client asked me how much financial coverage they should get. I said, for the entire amount of the pension plan; that is the potential exposure.GET EDUCATEDJohnson says he believes there is a need for more education regarding coverage, risk and terms from insurers and brokers when it comes to pension liability. I think there should be more information about what is covered under these policies, he argues. Those marketing insurance should understand the exposures directors and officers have under pension plans and how they may or may not be covered.That need may become more pressing in the years ahead, as pension plans evolve and continue to struggle with underfunding issues. The focus of pension litigation traditionally has been on defined benefit pensions, Johnston says, but defined contribution plans, which are increasing in popularity among plan a