natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Prodajno gradivo družbe Equitable, predloženo odboru, je opozarjalo tudi na „ izravnavo nihanj “ (WE-FILE 13; WE 53): SEYMOUR (H7) se je skliceval na „ dokument, [ki] navaja metodo upravljanja, da družba ELAS zagotavlja nekakšen izravnalni sklad, ki temelji na kopičenju rezerv ...
Equitable sales material submitted to the committee also alluded to " smoothing of fluctuations " (WE-FILE 13; WE 53): Mr SEYMOUR (H7) referred to " a document, [which] stated the method of management that ELAS provided something of a smoothing fund based on the build up of reserves...
Oglas družbe ELAS iz leta 2000, ki je priložen k WE-FILE 12, se glasi: „ Z družbo Equitable ne tvegate ničesar “.
The ELAS advertisement of 2000 annexed to WE-FILE 12 states the following: " With the Equitable you are putting nothing at risk ".
Oglaševanje družbe ELAS so kritizirali tudi zavarovanci v Nemčiji.
ELAS advertising was also subject to criticism in Germany.
WEYER je v WE 85
Mr WEYER indicates in WE 85
Stran 8. navedel, da „ je na začetku leta 2000 družba ELAS začela agresivno oglaševalsko akcijo, da bi privabila več nemških strank, pri čemer je objavila oglase, ki so navajali 13-odstotne obrestne mere iz leta 1999 “.
Page 8. that " in early 2000 ELAS started an aggressive campaign to attract more German clients and launched adverts referring to achieved interest rates of 13% for 1999 ".
V H3 je navedel, da so prodajni oglasi družbe Equitable Life potencialnim nemškim kupcem polic izrecno zagotavljali, da kupujejo police, ki so pod bonitetnim nadzorom nemških regulativnih organov, kar pa ni bilo res.
In H3 he claimed that Equitable Life's sales adverts implicitly suggested to potential German policy buyers that they were buying a policy subject to prudential scrutiny of the German regulatory authorities, which was not the case.
Predložene so bile kopije oglasov družbe ELAS, ki so bili objavljeni v nemških časopisih
Copies of EL advertisements published in German newspapers
Visoki donosi, skupaj z visoko stopnjo varstva – najprej smo morali pripraviti idealno varčevalno strategijo za nemške vlagatelje “ in „13 % donosi: Vprašajte vašo zavarovalnico, zakaj vam izplačuje le polovico“, celostranski oglasi v tedniku „Die Welt am Sonntag“ in dnevniku „Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung“ februarja 2000. .
High returns consistent with a high degree of security - the ideal savings strategy for German investors first had to be devised " and " 13% returns: ask your insurer why they only give you half " full-page advertisements in "D ie Welt am Sonntag ", weekly newspaper, and " Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung ", daily, in February 2000. were submitted.
Ko je bil v zvezi s tem povprašan predstavnik BaFin STEFFEN, je v H6 poročal, da je družba Equitable Life v Nemčiji ustavila oglaševalsko akcijo, vendar je to storila šele, potem ko je prejela več pisem od BAV, tedanjega nemškega zakonodajalca na področju financ, ki je menil, da so oglasi zavajajoči, ker bi lahko nemške stranke na podlagi navedenih pogojev pričakovale, da so omenjeni donosi zagotovljeni (glej tudi WE 85
Questioned on this subject, Mr. STEFFEN, representative of BaFin, reported in H6 that Equitable Life Germany stopped the advertisement campaign but that it did so only after it had received several letters from BAV, the German financial regulator at the time, who considered the advertisements to be misleading since the terms used would make German customers expect that the returns mentioned were guaranteed (see also WE 85
Kopijo teh pisem je odboru predložil BaFin (WE-CONF 17).
A copy of this exchange of correspondence has been submitted to the committee by BaFin (WE-CONF 17).
Obtožbe o zlorabi pri prodaji
Allegations of mis-selling
Kot veliko oškodovancev v Združenem kraljestvu je tudi večina irskih zavarovancev navedla, da pri sprejemanju odločitve o naložbi v družbo Equitable niso bili ustrezno seznanjeni s tveganjem, povezanim z zajamčeno rento polic (glej zlasti dokaze WE-LIFE 33 in druge pisne dokaze)
Like many UK victims, most Irish policyholders claim that when they decided to invest with Equitable, they were not properly informed about the GAR-related risks associated with their policies (see in particular WE-FILE 33 and other pieces of written evidence)
Glej tudi WE 3, WE-FILE 2, WE-FILE 4, WE-FILE 9, WE-FILE 11, WE-FILE 13, WE-FILE 14, WE-FILE 15. .
See also WE 3, WE-FILE 2, WE-FILE 4, WE-FILE 9, WE-FILE 11, WE-FILE 13, WE-FILE 14, WE-FILE 15. .
Irski zavarovanec O'FARRELL (WE-FILE9) se na primer spominja, da „ ni bil nikoli obveščen o potencialnih obveznostih, ki izhajajo iz zajamčenih rent in ogrožajo sklad, ter o morebitnih posledicah za pokojninske sklade, iz katerih naj bi se te obveznosti delno financirale.
By way of example, Irish policyholder Mr. O'FARRELL (WE-FILE 9) recalls how "I was never informed of the potential GAR liability looming over the fund and the possible consequences to my pensions funds having to partly finance that liability."
“ TROY (WE-FILE 4) je menil, da mu je bila decembra 1999 polica neprimerno prodana, saj „ je imela družba velike težave z obveznostmi, ki izhajajo iz pokojninskih skladov v Združenem kraljestvu ..., vendar s tem nisem bil seznanjen.
Mr TROY (WE-FILE 4) considers he was mis-sold his policy in December 1999 as "the company had major difficulties with its liabilities to pension funds in the UK ... and I was not made aware or privy to this."
“ Eden od irskih zavarovancev je odboru med obiskom delegacije na Irskem povedal, da mu je bila polica za življenjsko zavarovanje s klavzulo o soudeležbi pri dobičku zavarovalnice prodana le nekaj dni pred sodbo v zadevi Hyman.
One Irish policyholder told the committee during its delegation visit to Ireland, that he was sold his with-profits policy only a few days before the Hyman judgement.
Vendar obtožbe mednarodnih zavarovancev (zlasti irskih) o zlorabah pri prodaji presegajo zgolj splošno nerazkrivanje informacij s strani družbe o potencialnih obveznostih, ki izhajajo iz zajamčenih rent, do potencialnih strank.
However, the mis-selling allegations made by international (in particular Irish) policyholders, go beyond the mere failure of the society to disclose the potential GAR-liability to prospective customers in general terms.
Na srečanju z irskimi zavarovanci v Dublinu 6. oktobra 2006 je veliko zavarovancev omenjalo zavajajoče informacije, ki naj bi jim jih predložila družba ELAS, in sicer o tem, da bodo kupili police v irskem skladu, ki je ločen od sklada v Združenem kraljestvu in zato nanj ne vplivajo obveznosti iz sklada v Združenem kraljestvu.
During its meeting with Irish policyholders in Dublin on 6 October 2006, many of the policyholders referred to misleading information they claim to have received from ELAS to the effect that they would be buying into a separate Irish fund, which would be ring-fenced from the UK fund and therefore not affected by any liabilities within the UK fund.
Nekateri irski zakonodajalci, ki so izpolnili vprašalnik odbora, so to pozneje potrdili (WE-FILE 33).
This was later confirmed by some of those Irish policyholders who responded to the questionnaire which had been sent to them by the committee (WE-FILE 33).
Nekdanji zavarovalniški agent družbe ELAS na Irskem Seamus POWER (WE-FILE 2) je dejal, da je „ o vprašanju zajamčenih rent prebral v časopisu Sunday Times konec leta 1998.
Mr. Seamus POWER, a former ELAS sales representative in Ireland (WE-FILE 2), said that he " heard about the GAR issue through the Sunday Times in late 1998.
Nadaljevali smo s prodajo in v tem času je bilo zaposlenih še več zavarovalniških agentov.
After the lost appeal case " we were told to keep selling as we were 'ring-fenced' and would not be affected by the outcome even in the worst case. ...
Članek poroča o tiskovni konferenci družbe Equitable Life v Dublinu in navaja: „ Izvršni direktorji družbe Equitable ... so omalovaževali učinek nedavne sodbe drugostopenjskega sodišča .
The article apparently reports from a press conference by Equitable Life held in Dublin and states the following: " The Equitable executives ... played down the impact of a recent Court of Appeal ruling. ...
To nima nobenega vpliva na irske zavarovance, ki so ločeni od sklada v Združenem kraljestvu “ (priloga k WE-CONF 28).
This has no impact on Irish policyholders who are 'ring-fenced' from their UK counterparts " (annex to WE-CONF 28).
Kopija pisma je bila predložena odboru. „ in jim zagotovila, da so njihove police ločene in da nanje ne bo vplivala sodna odločba glede skladov družbe v Združenem kraljestvu.
Copy of the letter submitted to the Committee. " reassuring them that their polices were indeed separate and would be unaffected by any court ruling on the company’s UK funds.
Družba ELAS je 14. avgusta 2000 v pismu sporočila, da se bodo zaradi izgube sodnega primera bonusi za življenjsko zavarovanje s klavzulo o soudeležbi pri dobičku zavarovalnice za vse vrste zavarovancev zmanjšali in da je družba naprodaj. “
On 14 August 2000, ELAS wrote to say that as a result of the loss of the Court case with profit bonuses would be reduced for 'all' types of policyholders and that the society was up for sale. "
V zvezi z navedenim je THOMSON dejal: „ Zavedam se obtožb irskih zavarovancev, da jih je družba Equitable Life napačno obveščala o tem, da so sredstva vložili ali jih bodo vložili v irski sklad, ki bi bil ločen in nanj ne bi vplivale obveznosti sklada Združenega kraljestva “(H8).
In relation to the above, Mr THOMSON stated that " I am aware of allegations put forward by Irish policyholders claiming that they were falsely informed by Equitable Life that they bought or would be buying into a separate Irish fund which would be ring-fenced, and thus not affected by liabilities arising within the UK fund " (H8).
V odgovor je odboru povedal (H8): „ Iz tiskanega gradiva, ki sem ga videl, je jasno razvidno, da je obstajala želja, da bi nekoč v prihodnosti irski ali nemški sklad morda postal samostojen .
In response, he told the committee the following (H8): " The printed material I have seen is quite clear that there was an ambition that at some future date the Irish fund or the German fund might be independent.
Vendar je jasno, da nista bila samostojna.
However, clearly, they were not independent funds.
Nista imela lastnega ustanovitvenega kapitala; ta se je zagotovil iz glavnega sklada za življenjsko zavarovanje s klavzulo o soudeležbi pri dobičku zavarovalnice.
They did not have their own start-up capital; that was provided by the main with-profits fund.
Ločena sta bila v tem smislu, da sta imela sredstva v svoji državi in v svoji valuti, zaradi česar se je uspešnost naložb razlikovala.
The degree to which they were separate was in terms of having assets in those countries in that currency and that meant that the investment performance diverged.
Za sklad za življenjsko zavarovanje s klavzulo o soudeležbi pri dobičku zavarovalnice v Združenem kraljestvu ni neobičajno, da ima precej ločene nize bonusov za različne vrste polic, pri čemer imajo te prek posameznih nizov bonusov različno uspešnost naložb.
It is not uncommon in a UK with-profits fund to have quite separate bonus series for different contract types, and they will then get different investment performance fed through to that individual bonus series.
Če pa obstajajo težave, ki prizadenejo celoten sklad, bo to vplivalo na vse njegove sestavne dele.
However, if there are problems that beset the entire fund, then it will affect all of those components.
Takšno je bilo stališče irskih zavarovancev na podlagi literature, ki sem jo videl.
That was the position of the Irish policyholders in terms of the physical literature that I have seen.
To ne pomeni, da ni bilo posameznih pripomb o nasprotnem, ampak to je bilo uradno stališče “.
That is not to say that individual comments were not made that implied something different, but that was the official position ".
THOMSON pa je obljubil, da bo storil vse, da ugotovi (H8), zakaj se zdi, da so irski zavarovalniški agenti prejeli zavajajoče informacije in jih posredovali potencialnim zavarovancem.
Mr THOMSON promised, however " to do what I can to find ...out " (H8) why Irish salesmen appear to have been given misleading information and passed it on to prospective policyholders.
Pozneje je v WE-CONF21 potrdil, da „ ni seznanjen z nikakršno literaturo o produktih, ki bi navajala, da so irske naložbe nekako ločene od preostalih skladov za življenjsko zavarovanje s klavzulo o soudeležbi pri dobičku zavarovalnice.
Later he confirmed in WE-CONF 21 that " I am not aware of anything in the product literature which states that Irish investments would somehow be kept separate from the rest of the with profits fund ".
“ Irski zakonodajalec je navedel, da „ od začetka preiskave zadeve družbe Equitable Life, ki jo je zahteval tedanji namestnik predsednika vlade na Irskem, niso bili predloženi dokazi, ki bi podprli obtožbe, da je družba Equitable Life govorila o obstoju ločenega sklada na Irskem “ (WE 80).
The Irish regulator notes that " since the commencement of our investigation into the Equitable Life matter at the request of the then Tánaiste, no evidence has been presented to support the allegations that Equitable Life were representing that an Irish ‘ring-fenced’ fund existed " (WE 80).
Nemški zavarovanec SCHÄFER je v WE 10 navedel, da so bili zavarovanci brez zajamčenih obrestnih mer v slabšem položaju v primerjavi s tistimi z zajamčenimi obrestnimi merami.
Mr SCHÄFER, a German policyholder claims in WE 10 that policyholders without guaranteed interest rates (GIRs) would be disadvantaged compared to those with GIRs.
Družba ELAS je police z zajamčenimi obrestnimi merami prodajala do leta 1996.
GIR policies were sold by ELAS up until 1996.
Verjel je, da je obstoj polic z zajamčenimi obrestnimi merami škodljivo vplival na uspešnost polic brez zajamčenih obrestnih mer.
He believes that the existence of policies with GIRs has had an adverse impact on the performance of non-GIR policies.
Zato je menil, da so zavarovanci s policami brez zajamčenih obrestnih mer „ navzkrižno subvencionirali zavarovance s policami z zajamčenimi obrestnimi merami “.
He thus considers that non-GIR policyholders have " cross-subsidised GIR policyholders ".
SCHÄFER je to težavo primerjal s težavo v zvezi z obveznostmi, ki izhajajo iz zajamčenih rent, in menil, da imajo zavarovanci s policami brez zajamčenih obrestnih mer dober argument glede zlorabe pri prodaji.
Mr SCHÄFER compares the problem with that of GAR-liabilities and believes that non-GIR policyholders have a strong case for mis-selling.
V zvezi s tem se je skliceval zlasti na študijo, ki jo je izvedel Zavod za pokojninsko zavarovanje Združenega kraljestva (WE 29) in ki podpira njegova stališča.
In this respect, he referred in particular to a study carried out by the UK Pensions Institute (WE 29), which appears to corroborate his views.
Odbor je THOMSONA vprašal, ali so obtožbe resnične, vendar je dobil le izmikajoč odgovor (H8
The committee asked Mr THOMSON whether the allegations were true but only received an evasive answer (H8
Potrdim lahko, da so bila vsa jamstva izpolnjena.
I can confirm that all guarantees have been met.
Poleg tega terminalni bonus, ko se dodeli, omogoča police z zajamčenimi obrestnimi merami “(THOMSON, H8). ).
Further, the terminal bonus, when it is allocated, allows for the GIRs in GIR contracts " (Mr THOMSON, H8). ).
Ker pa ta težava ni značilna za nemške zavarovance ali druge zavarovance, ki niso iz Združenega kraljestva, se zdaj ne raziskuje dodatno.
Since this problem is not, however, specific to German or other non-UK policyholders, it is not further explored at this point.
Obtožbe o diskriminatorni obravnavi
Allegations of discriminatory treatment
Nekateri zavarovanci so opozorili na domnevno diskriminatorno obravnavo zavarovancev, ki niso iz Združenega kraljestva, s strani družbe Equitable Life.
Some policyholders alluded to supposedly discriminatory treatment by Equitable Life of non-UK policyholders.
V WE-CONF 19 je na primer navedeno, da so bili zavarovanci na Irskem in v Nemčiji diskriminirani tako, da nihče ni bil upravičen do zajamčene rente (ker je družba ELAS prekinila prodajo takšnih polic, preden sta se podružnici odprli).
In WE-CONF 19, for instance, a view is expressed that policyholders in Ireland and Germany were discriminated against by the sheer fact that non of them was entitled to the guaranteed annuity rate (because ELAS had stopped offering such policies before the two branches were opened).
V zvezi s tem se domneva, da je družba ELAS „ začela delovati v obeh državah, ko je bilo (glede na Penrosovo poročilo) njeno poslovanje najslabše “ (WE-CONF 19).
In relation to this it is alleged that ELAS " started its operations in both countries when (according to the Penrose report) the Equitable was possibly at its weakest " (WE-CONF 19).
Še ena priča je omenila začetek evropskega sklada na Irskem leta 2000: „ Ta sklad je bil v Združenem kraljestvu na voljo že od leta 1987 .
Another witness referred to the launch of a 'European fund' in Ireland in the year 2000: " This fund had been available in the UK since 1987.
Družba Equitable je na Irskem trgovala že od novembra 1991, vendar se ji očitno ni zdelo ustrezno začeti s prodajo tega produkta na irskem trgu do marca 2000, le štiri mesece pred pokom mehurčka. ...
Equitable had been trading in Ireland since November 1991 but apparently had never found it appropriate to launch this product on the Irish market until March 2000, just four months before the bubble burst. ...
Čas začetka prodaje jasno kaže, da je družba nameravala izčrpati čim večjo vsoto denarja iz irskega trga in da ji ni bilo [mar], kako bo to vplivalo na irske zavarovance “ (WE-CONF 28).
The timing of the launch indicates clearly that the Society was intent on extracting the maximum amount of money from the Irish market and did not [care] about the consequences for Irish people " (WE-CONF 28).
Poleg tega se je irska zavarovanka KNOWDOVA (H2) pritožila, da so se irskim zavarovancem in zavarovancem iz Združenega kraljestva podeljevali različni bonusi.
Secondly, Irish policyholder Ms KNOWD (H2) complained about different bonuses awarded to Irish and UK policyholders, respectively.
Kot je navedeno v točki c.), je THOMSON v H2 in H8 pojasnil, da so irsko poslovanje, nemško poslovanje in poslovanje v Združenem kraljestvu družbe ELAS ločeni v smislu različnih nizov bonusov in različnih fiktivnih namenskih naložb.
As outlined above under point c.), Mr THOMSON explained in both H2 and H8 that there was a separation between ELAS' Irish business, German business and UK business in terms of different series of bonus and notionally earmarked different investments.
Družba ELAS je navedla, da „ so se ravni bonusov med policami v Združenem kraljestvu in na Irskem občasno razlikovale zaradi različnega donosa sredstev, zastavljenih fiktivnemu irskemu skladu “ (WE-CONF 5).
According to ELAS, " bonus rates have differed between UK and Irish policies from time to time due to the different performance of assets hypothecated to the notional Irish fund " (WE-CONF 5).
Glej tudi WE-CONF 1 in WE-CONF 13. je v nadaljevanju navedla, da so se irskim zavarovancem „ naložile “ večje „ kazni “: „ Aprila 2003 je finančno prilagajanje na Irskem znašalo 13,6 %, za zavarovance v Združenem kraljestvu pa 11 %.Prilagajanje zapadlosti je znašalo 15 % na Irskem in 9 % v Združenem kraljestvu.
See also WE-CONF 1 and WE-CONF 13. claimed furthermore that higher " penalties " were " imposed " on Irish policyholders: " In April 2003, the financial adjustment in Ireland was 13.6% and for UK policyholders 11%.
Politika obveščanja družbe ELAS
ELAS information policy
KNOWDOVA (H2) se je pritožila tudi glede domnevnega diskriminatornega ravnanja družbe ELAS v zvezi z zagotavljanjem informacij zavarovancem.
Ms KNOWD (H2) furthermore complained about ELAS' allegedly discriminatory practices in terms of providing information to policyholders.
Navedla je, da „ informacije, namenjene zlasti irskim zavarovancem, niso vključene v letno poročilo in izkaze “, ter da „ ni prejela obvestila o letni skupščini “ in zato „ ni imela glasovalne pravice “.
She claims that " information specific to Irish policyholders is not contained in the annual report and accounts ", that she " did not get notification of the AGM " and that she was thus " deprived of her voting rights ".
Primer tega je predlog za sporazumno poravnavo, objavljen v veliki naglici, tako imenovan sporazumni načrt o zajamčenih rentah.
An example of this is the ‘proposal for a compromise settlement’, sent out in great haste, the so-called GAR compromise plan.
Vključeval je 227 strani.
It alone comprised 227 pages.
Struktura dokumenta je zelo neprijazna in nepregledna ter je nemškim zavarovancem v zelo majhno pomoč, ker se dokument, ki dolgoročno ureja pravice in obveznosti pogodbenih strank, sklicuje na angleško pravo in zlasti oddelek 425 iz zakona o gospodarskih družbah iz leta 1985.
The document has a very cumbersome and impenetrable structure which is of little help to the German policyholder because the document, which sets out to settle the rights and obligations of the contracting parties in the long term, refers to English law and, in particular, to Section 425 of the Companies Act of 1985.
Nemški zavarovanci si s tem ne morejo veliko pomagati, zlasti ker naj bi se pri sklepanju polic in ob upoštevanju laičnega razumevanja polic uporabljalo le nemško pravo.
German policyholders cannot make much sense of this, particularly as, when contracts were concluded and according to a layman’s reading of the policies, only German law was supposed to be applicable.
Zlasti kritična točka je politika obveščanja v zvezi s količinsko opredelitvijo odkupnih vrednosti, če polica omogoča odkup, in informacijami o natančni sestavi sporazuma o udeležbi pri dobičku.
A particularly critical point is the information policy in relation to the quantification of surrender values, in so far as the contract allows surrender, and information on the exact composition of the profit-sharing arrangement.
S tega stališča lahko nemški zavarovanci sedanjo politiko družbe opišejo kot politiko brez kakršnega koli obveščanja, razen golih številk .“
Here the current policy of the Society from the point of view of German policyholders could be described in practice as no information at all, apart from a bare figure ."
WEYER (H3) je omenil tudi jezikovne težave, ki jih je družba povzročila s tem, ko nekaterih dokumentov ni zagotovila v nemškem jeziku: „ Nemški zavarovanci so 12. aprila 2006 prejeli pismo s priloženimi dokumenti za glasovanje, letnim poročilom in izjavami kandidatov le v angleškem jeziku, pri čemer so bili navedeni naslednji razlogi: ‚Letos pošiljamo dokumente le v angleškem jeziku, da bi se izognili zamudam zaradi prevajanja in ločenega tiskanja .
Mr WEYER (H3) also referred to linguistic problems caused by the Society's refusal to provide certain documents in German: " The German policyholders were contacted by letter of 12 April 2006 enclosing the voting documents, the annual report and the candidates’ declarations only in English stating the following reasons: ‘we are only sending the documents in English this year in order to avoid delays due to translation and separate printing.
S tem se bomo izognili tudi stroškom‘.
The use of English documents will also save expense’.
Mislim, da je jasno, da je veliko nemških zavarovancev ta položaj zelo vznejevoljil in so se počutili precej nemočne, ker si večina zavarovancev, kot smo izvedeli, z angleškimi dokumenti ni mogla pomagati.
I think it is clear that many of the German policyholders were very annoyed by this procedure and felt they were in a quite helpless situation because the great majority of policyholders, as we learned, could not make any use of the English documents. "