natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
sreda, 14. februar 2001 : Družba Equitable Life je naročila Nicholasu Warrenu QC, da preuči vprašanja, povezana z zadevo o zajamčenih rentah
14 February 2001 : EL instructed Nicholas Warren, QC to examine issues arising from GAR case
četrtek, 10. maj 2001 : Warrenov osnutek poročila je pokazal, da so imeli zavarovanci s policami brez zajamčenih rent utemeljeno pravico v zvezi z zlorabo pri prodaji.
10 May 2001 : The ' Warren draft report' suggested non-GAR policyholders have valid rights for mis-selling
ponedeljek, 16. julij 2001: Družba Equitable Life je vrednost polic zmanjšala za 16 % (glede na stopnjo konec leta 2000).
16 July 2001: EL reduced policy values by 16% ( of end-2000 level)
V WE-CONF16 je navedeno, da se je družba Equitable Life odločila za pavšalno znižanje vrednosti polic ne glede na njihovo trajanje, namesto da bi zmanjšala končne bonuse
WE-CONF16 claimed EL decided for a flat rate cut in policy value, irrespective of their duration, instead of a cut to final bonuses
Izvršni direktor družbe Equitable Life (H8) je povedal, je bila ta odločitev sprejeta „za doseganje večje poštenosti za vse zavarovance“ (brez navedenih podrobnosti) „po obravnavi več možnosti z AA.“ , kot je predlagal nov imenovani aktuar Nowell, pri čemer je krivdo zvalila na neugodne pogoje na borzi.
EL CEO Mr. Thomson (H8) claimed this decision was taken " to achieve greater fairness for all policyholders " (no specifications given, ndr) " after having considered a range of options with the AA ." as recommended by the new Appointed Actuary Mr. Nowell, blaming adverse stock market conditions.
Kljub temu, da je borzni indeks FTSE-100 med julijem 2001 in aprilom 2002 padel le za 6 %, in kljub relativno nizki izpostavljenosti družbe Equitable Life iz naslova lastniških instrumentov.
This in spite of the FTSE-100 stock index declining only 6% between July 2001-April 2002 and EL's relatively low equity exposure (46%).
Za nadaljnje podrobnosti glej WE-CONF16 (stran 3–4), ki navajajo, da je „polovica zmanjšanja vrednosti polic nastala zaradi tega, ker je družba Equitable Life več kot deset let plačevala prevelike bonuse“.
For further details, see WE-CONF16 (pages 3-4) claiming that " half of the policy value cut derived from EL paying excessive bonuses for more than a decade".
Avgust 2001 Družba Equitable Life je zavarovancem zavrnila dostop do finančne revizije.
August 2001 EL denied access to the Financial Review
Izvršni direktor družbe Equitable Life (H8) je navedel, da je „odločitev glede vrednosti polic namenjena upravi, ne zavarovancem: po tej odločitvi so zavarovanci izvedeli, da so vrednosti polic v skladu s sredstvi, zato so se lahko na podlagi prejetih informacij odločili, ali bodo ostali ali ne.“
EL CEO Mr. Thomson (H8) claimed that " the policy value decision was for the board, not for policyholders: following the decision they were told policy values were in line with assets, so they were able to take an informed decision, about whether to stay or leave." to policyholders
četrtek, 20. september 2001 : Družba Equitable Life je v skladu z oddelkom 425 Zakona o zavarovalnicah iz leta 1985 pripravila osnutek odškodninske sheme , ki je temeljila na odkupu zajamčenih rent, da bi se stabiliziralo finančno poslovanje družbe; shemo so morali odobriti zavarovanci in višje sodišče.
20 September 2001 : EL drafted the Compromise Scheme pursuant to section 425 of the Insurance Companies Act 1985, based on a GAR buy-out and aimed at stabilizing the company's finances; the scheme is subject to policyholders' and High Court approval
Glej tudi pismo družbe Equitable Life zavarovancem z dne 29. oktobra 2001 iz WE-CONF19.
see also letter of 29 October 2001 from EL to policyholder in WE-CONF19.
sobota, 1. december 2001 : Organ za finančne storitve je v celoti postal operativen kot edini zakonodajalec Združenega kraljestva
1 December 2001 : FSA became fully operational as UK single regulator
Uradni predlog za odškodninsko shemo je bil poslan zavarovancem.
Formal Compromise Scheme Proposal was sent to policyholders
petek, 7. december 2001 : Organ za finančne storitve je javno potrdil odškodninsko shemo v okrožnici.
7 December 2001 : FSA publicly endorsed the Compromise Scheme in its Scheme Circular
Gradivo Organa za finančne storitve je vključevalo mnenji Iana Glicka QC in Richarda Snowdena ter mnenji Nicholasa Warrena QC in Thomasa Lowa, ki so jih dali na zahtevo družbe Equitable Life (WE-CONF2, odstavek 3).
the FSA material included two opinions of Ian Glick QC and Richard Snowden and two opinions of Nicholas Warren QC and Thomas Lowe given on instruction of the Society (WE-CONF2, para.3).
petek, 11. januar 2002 : Zavarovanci so glasovali o odškodninski shemi: sprejeta bi bila, če bi jo odobrilo več kot 50 % posameznih zavarovancev, ki predstavljajo 75 % vrednosti obeh vrst polic (police z zajamčenimi rentami in police brez zajamčenih rent).
11 January 2002 : Policyholders voted on the Compromise Scheme: approved if endorsed by over 50% of individual policyholders representing 75% of the value of both types of policies (GAR and non-GAR)
ponedeljek, 28. januar 2002 : Družba Equitable Life je povedala, da je velika večina zavarovancev glasovala za odškodninsko shemo (98 % zavarovancev s policami brez zajamčenih rent in 99 % zavarovancev s policami z zajamčenimi rentami).
28 January 2002 : EL announced policyholders voted overwhelmingly in favour of the deal (98% non-GAR, 99% GAR policyholders)
8. februar 2002 : Višje sodišče je odobrilo odškodninsko shemo, ki bila nemudoma pripravljena za izvajanje; družba Equitable Life je uporabila 10-odstotno izstopno kazen; Halifax je družbi Equitable Life zagotovil obljubljenih 250 milijonov GBP.
8 February 2002 : High Court approved Compromise Scheme which became immediately operational; EL applied 10% exit penalty; Halifax injected the promised £250 million into EL
15. april/1. julij 2002 : Družba Equitable Life je zmanjšala vrednost dospelih polic s klavzulo o soudeležbi pri dobičku zavarovalnice za 4 % in 6 % ter povišala izhodno kazen na 14 %; hkrati je poročilo družbe Equitable Life za leto 2001 pokazalo, da so bili novemu predsedniku in izvršnemu direktorju izplačani bogati bonusi
15 April/1 July 2002 : EL cut maturity value of with profits policies by 4% and 6% , raising exit penalty to 14%; at the same time, the EL 2001 report showed lavish bonuses paid to new Chairman and CEO
Uprava se je strinjala, da so plačila primerna, poštena, pravično zaslužena in zagotovo ne prevelika.“ (glej tudi letno skupščino družbe Equitable Life, maj 2002)
The Board agreed that the payments were appropriate, fair, justly deserved and certainly not overgenerous." (see also EL AGM, May2002)
SLATER je poskusil pojasniti, zakaj je bilo treba julija 2001 zmanjšati vrednost polic za 16 %, in predložil tabelo
In suggesting an explanation on how the need for the 16% cut in policy values of July 2001 had arisen, Mr. SLATER submitted a chart
WE34, stran 2; podatki temeljijo na ugotovitvah Penrosovega poročila. , ki kaže, da ni družba Equitable Life več kot 10 let usklajevala vrednosti polic z vrednostjo sredstev, s čimer je vsako leto od leta 1989 do leta 2000 ustvarjala primanjkljaj, ki je bil najvišji leta 1990 z 28 % in leta 1994 z 20 %.
WE34, page 2; data based on findings of the Penrose Report. showing that, over more than a decade, EL had not balanced its policy values with asset values, thus accumulating substantial deficits every year from 1989 to 2000, with peaks of 28% in 1990 and 20% in 1994.
Rezultat te „ politike objave skupnih previsokih bonusov glede na dejanske dobičke iz naložb je spodbudil več sto tisoč novih nedolžnih vlagateljev in družba se je zelo razširila .
As a result of this " policy of declaring total bonuses in excess of actual investment performance encouraged hundreds of thousands of innocent new investors and the Society expanded hugely.
Višje vodstvo družbe Equitable Life je jasno priznalo tveganja, ki so jih s tem povzročili.
Equitable Life's senior management clearly recognised the risks they were taking.
Nov odbor direktorjev je 27. junija 2001 poslušal stališče izvršnega direktorja Charlesa Thomsona glede ravni presežka, ki ga je pričakoval ob koncu leta 1999.
On 27 June 2001 the new board of directors heard Chief Executive Charles Thomson’s view of the level of surplus he would have expected at the end of 1999.
Thomson je na začetku leta 2000 izjavil, da je bil presežek vrednosti polic glede na vrednost sredstev približno 3 %, kar je bilo sprejemljivo.
Thomson commented that at the beginning of 2000, the excess of policy values over the value of assets was approximately 3%, which would have been within the acceptable range.
V odgovor na to vprašanje je Thomson potrdil, da bi po običajnih aktuarskih načelih v takem primeru pričakoval šest- do sedemodstotni presežek vrednosti sredstev glede na vrednost polic.
In response to a question, Thomson confirmed that under normal actuarial principles he would have expected there however to have been an excess in the value of assets over policy values of perhaps 6-7% at that time.
V začetku leta 2000 je družbi primanjkovalo (ali pa se je odločila za izplačevanje previsokih bonusov) približno 10 % (3 % + 7 %) ali 2,5 milijarde funtov sredstev.
At the beginning of 2000 the Society was short of assets (or had voted excessive bonuses) of about 10% (3%+7%) or £2½ billion.
Izguba v zadevi zajamčenih rent julija 2000 je povišala ta primanjkljaj na 4 milijarde funtov.
The loss of the GAR case in July 2000 increased this shortage to £4 billion.
To je približen znesek, ki se je dobil s 16-odstotnim znižanjem vrednosti polic 16. julija 2001.“
This was approximately the amount recovered by the 16% cut of policy values on 16th July 2001."
WE34, strani 3–4
WE34, page 3-4.
V zvezi z rezultatom tožbe Hyman in njenimi posledicami je v WE 46 navedena izjava svetovalca Ministrstva za gospodarstvo in finančne zadeve Združenega kraljestva Neda CAZALETA, ki je govoril o zavarovancih s policami z zajamčenimi rentami: „Sami sebi so skopali jamo.
Referring to the outcome of the Hyman litigation and its consequences, WE 46 cited Mr. Ned CAZALET, an advisor to the UK Treasury on life insurance, saying of the GAR policyholders : "They just shot themselves in the head.
Lahko bi gladko zmagali na sodišču.
They could win a court victory.
Vprašanje je: kakšne so posledice zmage?
The question is: What are the consequences of winning?
Družba Equitable Life bo zdaj morda morala plačati račun 1,5 milijarde GBP za kritje zajamčenih rent.
The Equitable is left facing a possible bill of £1.5 billion to cover the guaranteed annuity rates.
Tolikšne vsote ne more plačati.“
It does not have that kind of money to spare."
Za bolj neformalen zaključek vprašanja o zajamčenih rentah je CAZALET povedal: „ Družbo Equitable Life lahko primerjamo z vrečko čokoladnih bonbonov.
Wrapping up the GAR issue on a more informal note, Mr. CAZALET concluded: " Think of the Equitable as a box of Smarties.
Učitelj skupini otrok obljubi, da bo vsak dobil štiri bonbone.
The teacher promises a group of children four each.
Vendar v vrečki ni toliko bonbonov, kot je učitelj predvideval, zato lahko vsak otrok dobi le tri.
But the tube is smaller than the teacher thought and, when the sweets are shared between the whole class, there are only enough for three each.
Razočarana skupina zahteva, da učitelj obljubo drži.
The disappointed group demands the promise be kept.
Edini način, da otrok dobi dodatne bonbone je, da jih vzame drugim otrokom.
The only way to get the extra Smarties is by grabbing them from their classmates.
3b Natančni pogoji odškodninske sheme
3b) The Compromise terms in detail
V praksi so pogoji odškodninske sheme pomenili, da:
In practice, the compromise terms meant that:
– vrednost police 70 000 posameznih zavarovancev s polico z zajamčenimi rentami bi se povečala za 17,5 % v zameno za odpoved pravicam do zajamčene rente;
- 70.000 GAR individual policyholders would get an increase of 17,5% in their policy value , in exchange for giving up their rights to a guaranteed annuity rate
– vrednost police 415 000 posameznih zavarovancev s polico brez zajamčenih rent bi se povečala za 2,5 % v zameno za odpoved pravici do tožbe družbe Equitable Life zaradi zlorab pri prodaji.
- 415.000 non-GAR individual policyholders would get an increase of 2,5% in their policy value , in exchange for giving up their right to sue Equitable Life for mis-selling.
Profesor David BLAKE je v WE29 navedel, da je „ dokumentacija predloga odškodninske sheme iz decembra 2001 (in vmesno poročilo iz leta 2001) zavarovancem pokazala, da sklad za življenjsko zavarovanje s klavzulo o soudeležbi pri dobičku zavarovalnice čaka negotova prihodnost, če zavarovanci ne bodo glasovali za predlog odškodninske sheme, ki bi odpravil težavo z zajamčenimi rentami.
In WE29 Professor David BLAKE claimed that " the compromise scheme proposal documentation of December 2001 (and the 2001 interim accounts) indicated to policyholders that the with-profits fund would face an uncertain future only if policyholders failed to vote for the compromise scheme proposal that removed the problem with guaranteed annuities (GARs).
WE29, odstavka 5 in 7.
WE29, para.5 and 7.
V zvezi z vsebino predloga odškodninske sheme je v WE29 navedeno, da je uprava družbe Equitable Life menila, da „ njen predlog rešitve podpirajo štiri načela .
Referring to the content of the Compromise Scheme proposition, WE29 reported that the EL board had argued that "four principles underpinned its proposed solution.
Glej WE29, Priloga A.17-18.
see WE29, annex A.17-18.
Če zavarovanci ne bi izglasovali odškodninske sheme, je uprava družbe Equitable Life razmišljala o naslednjih možnostih
In the event that the Compromise Scheme were not approved at the policyholders' vote, the EL had board considered the following options
Glej WE29, Priloga A.24-25. :
see WE29, annex A.24-25. :
Na primer prenos v skladu s Prilogo 2C Zakona o zavarovalnicah iz leta 1982 ali prenos poslovanja sklada za življenjsko zavarovanje s klavzulo o soudeležbi pri dobičku zavarovalnice tretji stranki v skladu z oddelkom 112 “Zakona o finančnih storitvah in trgu iz leta 2000 (WE29). ;
For instance a 'Schedule 2C transfer' under ICA 1982 or a 'Section 112 transfer' of the with-profits business to a third party under FSMA 2000 " (WE29).
3c) Poročilo neodvisnega aktuarja
3c) The independent actuary's report
Družba Equitable Life je imenovala neodvisnega aktuarja Michaela Arnolda
Equitable Life had appointed an independent actuary, Mr. Michael Arnold
Za več podrobnosti glej WE-CONF9. , da bi ocenil pogoje odškodninske sheme.
for more details, see WE-CONF9. , to assess the compromise terms.
Vendar je aktuar navedel, da je dolžan „ poročati zgolj družbi ... in da nima dolžnosti do nobenih zavarovancev družbe.
He stated however that it was his duty "to report to the Society alone ... and no duty is owed to any policyholder of the Society.
Te nemške police ne bodo del odškodninske sheme in shema nanje ne bo vplivala.“
These German policies will not be party to or affected by the Scheme."
Michael Arnold v povzetku poročila navaja, da so bili pogoji odškodninske sheme „ z aktuarskega vidika pošteno in razumno“ določeni (WE67) in da „ je družba določila stroške za zajamčene rente na podlagi realne ocene ...“ (WE29).
In the report's summary, Mr. Arnold considered the terms of the Compromise to have been established " in a fair and reasonable way from an actuarial point of view " (WE67) and that " the Society has established the GAR cost on a realistic estimate basis ..."
3d) Vloga Organa za finančne storitve v „odškodninski shemi“
3d) FSA's role in 'Compromise Scheme'
Ker je bila odškodninska shema predlagana v okviru oddelka 425 Zakona o zavarovalnicah iz leta 1985, ni imel Organ za finančne storitve v procesu nobene uradne vloge, vendar je kot zakonodajalec v skladu z Zakonom o finančnih storitvah in trgih iz leta 2000 imel pooblastilo, da po potrebi ukrepa in tako zaščiti interese zavarovancev.
As the Compromise Scheme was proposed under Section 425 of the ICA 1985, the FSA had no formal role in the process but, as a regulator, it had, under the FSMA 2000 , the power to take action if it considered it appropriate, in order to protect the policyholders' interests.
Organ za finančne storitve bi lahko za besedo zaprosil tudi, če bi se po glasovanju zavarovancev odškodninska shema vložila na sodišče za uradno potrditev.
The FSA could also seek to be heard if the scheme was taken to court for formal approval after the policyholders' vote.
V svoji oceni odškodninske sheme, objavljeni 7. decembra 2001 (WE67), je Organ za finančne storitve potrdil pogoje dogovora, pri čemer je navedel, da „ ni imel razloga za posredovanje in nasprotovanje predlogom, predloženim zavarovancem, “ in pojasnil, da „ je po njegovem mnenju za zadevne skupine zavarovancev s policami z zajamčenimi rentami in zavarovancev s policami, ki ne vključujejo zajamčene rente, raven povečanja vrednosti polic poštena ponudba v zameno za pravice do zajamčenih rent in možne zahtevke glede zlorab pri prodaji, ki bi se opustili.
In its assessment of the Compromise Scheme published on 7 December 2001 (WE67), the FSA endorsed the terms of the deal, stating that " it had no reason to intervene to object to the proposals being put to policyholders" and specifying that " the FSA is content that, in relation to the relevant groups of GAR and non-GAR policyholders, the level of increase to policy values is a fair offer in exchange for the GAR rights and potential mis-selling claims that would be given up.
Čeprav v vsaki zadevni skupini obstajajo razlike med posameznimi osebami, smo zadovoljni, da v skupinah ni kategorij zavarovancev, ki bi prejemali nesorazmerno večje ali manjše prejemke ...“
While there are variations from person to person, within each relevant group, we are content that there are no categories of policyholder within the groups who would receive disproportionately greater or lesser benefits ..."
Ugotavlja, da Organ za finančne storitve „ trdno verjame, da bi uspešna odškodninska shema načeloma ponudila najboljše možnosti za vzpostavljanje stabilnosti skladov za življenjsko zavarovanje s klavzulo o soudeležbi pri dobičku zavarovalnice in izboljšanje obetov za zadevne zavarovance .“
It concluded that the FSA " firmly believes that a successful compromise would, in principle, offer the best prospect of bringing stability to the with-profits fund and improving the outlook for concerned policyholders ."
Zadovoljni smo, da je dovolj jasna, da lahko oblikujejo lastno mnenje, kako naj glasujejo, glede na posamezne okoliščine .“
We are content that it is sufficiently clear to enable them to form their own view on how they should vote, in the light of their individual circumstances ."
3e) Pritožbe zavarovancev
3e) Complaints by policyholders
Veliko število zavarovancev s policami, ki ne vključujejo zajamčene rente, in predstavnikov akcijskih skupin zavarovancev je predložilo dokaze in pritožbe o odškodninski shemi.
A large number of non-GAR policyholders and representatives of policyholders' action groups have submitted evidence and complaints about the Compromise Scheme.
Glede na njihove trditve je bila shema že na začetku oblikovana tako, da bi škodovala zavarovancem, pri čemer naj bi vodstvo družbe Equitable Life poznejša znižanja vrednosti polic aprila in julija 2002, ki so takoj izničila skromno zvišanje, ki ga je shema prinesla
According to their claims, the Scheme had been devised in such a way as to harm policyholders from the beginning, suggesting that the subsequent policy cuts in April and July 2002 that promptly annihilated the modest uplift the Scheme had awarded them
Glej WE6, WE7, WE-CONF16, WE-CONF. , predvidelo ali celo načrtovalo že pri prvi predložitvi sheme septembra 2001.
see WE6, WE7, WE-CONF16, WE-CONF. , had been foreseen, if not deliberately planned, by the EL management already when first proposing the Scheme in September 2001.
Poleg tega naj bi se zakonodajalec zavedal dejstva, da so bila predlagana zvišanja vrednosti polic izmišljena, ker jih ni pokrivalo dovolj sredstev.
Additionally, the regulator would have been aware of the fact that the proposed uplifts were fictitious, because they were not covered by sufficient assets.
Zavarovanci so se tudi pritožili, da jih je družba zavajala, da bo odškodninska shema stabilizirala sklad za življenjsko zavarovanje s klavzulo o soudeležbi pri dobičku zavarovalnice, kar se je izkazalo za neresnično, saj so na sklad še vedno vplivala nihanja na trgu in poznejši padec trga vrednostnih papirjev leta 2002.
Policyholders also complained that they had been led to believe that the with-profits fund would have been stabilized by the Compromise Scheme, a fact which proved to be untrue, as the fund remained subject to market fluctuations and the subsequent stock market fall during 2002.
Zato so oškodovani zavarovanci trdili, da so bili po sprejemu sheme februarja 2002 zavarovanci s policami, ki ne vključujejo zajamčene rente, v slabšem položaju kot prej, saj so se s podpisom odrekli pravici do zahtevka za odškodnino družbe, ne da bi prejeli kakršno koli dejansko protistoritev.
As a result, aggrieved policyholders claimed that after the Scheme was adopted in February 2002, non-GAR policyholders were definitely worse off than before, having signed away their right to claim redress from the Society, without having obtained any factual counterpart.
Družba Equitable Life in Organ za finančne storitve (H4) sta večkrat poudarila, da poznejša znižanja vrednosti polic niso bila povezana s pogoji odškodninske sheme kot take, ampak jih je povzročil velik padec trga vrednostnih papirjev leta 2002, ki je oslabil premoženjsko osnovo sklada za življenjsko zavarovanje s klavzulo o soudeležbi pri dobičku zavarovalnice, ter trdila, da takšnega padca trga ni bilo mogoče predvideti v času oblikovanja sheme septembra 2001
Equitable Life and the FSA (H4) have repeatedly argued that the subsequent policy cuts had nothing to do with the terms of the Compromise as such but were due to the drastic stock market fall in 2002 that weakened the asset base of the with-profits fund, and claimed that a market downturn of that magnitude could not have been foreseen at the moment the Scheme was devised in September 2001
Med septembrom 2001 in septembrom 2002 je borzni indeks FTSE-100 padel za 29 %, med decembrom 2001 in aprilom 2002 pa je ostal v osnovi nespremenjen. .
Between September 2001 and September 2002 the FTSE-100 stock market index fell by 29%, but between December 2001 and April 2002 it remained basically unchanged. .
Družba Cazalet se v zapisniku iz januarja 2001, poslanega odboru Ministrstva za gospodarstvo in finančne zadeve, strinja, da „ je v interesu družbe kot celote, da reši težavo glede možnosti zajamčenih rent tako, da se zavarovanci z odloženimi pokojninskimi rentami odpovejo svojim možnostim ...
The Cazalet Memorandum of January 2001 sent to the Treasury Committee agreed that " it would be in the interest of the Society as a whole to resolve the guaranteed annuity option problem by having policyholders with pensions in deferment relinquish their options ...
Vendar sploh ni jasno, ali bodo zavarovanci s policami z zajamčenimi rentami glasovali za takšno shemo, saj se zdi, da bo verjeten predlog spremljala večja vrednost polic skupin s policami z zajamčenimi rentami zaradi vnaprejšnjega povečanja kapitala, ampak da bo na podlagi sedanjih tržnih pogojev posledična izguba zajamčenih rent povzročila spremljajoč padec dohodka iz rent v obdobju upokojitve ...
However, it is not at all clear that the GAR policyholders will vote for such a scheme, as it appears that the likely proposal will see the value of the GAR group's policies enhanced as a result of the up-front capital boost but that, on the basis of current market conditions, the subsequent loss of the GAR would cause a concomitant fall in annuity income in retirement ...