Norway’s Pension Fund Global Excludes Chinese Firm for Environmental Damage Risk

The $1.4 trillion pension giant also placed U.K.-based Petrofac on observation over allegations of corruption and bribery.




Norges Bank Investment Management, which manages Norway’s $1.4 trillion sovereign wealth fund, said it has decided to exclude from the fund a Chinese state-owned hydroelectric power company over environmental damage risk and initiate observation of a British oil and gas infrastructure company due to “risk of gross corruption.”

The firm also decided to end a specific ownership exercise related to an Indian chemical company that had been recommended to be placed under observation in 2018 over alleged human rights violations.

The executive board of Norway’s sovereign wealth fund said it has decided to exclude the Power Construction Corp. of China Ltd., known as PowerChina, due to the risk of “contributing to or being responsible for serious environmental damage” related to the company’s hydropower development in the Batang Toru region of Indonesia.

According to the recommendation from Norges Bank’s Council on Ethics, PowerChina’s subsidiary Sinohydro Corp. is responsible for the construction and operation of the Batang Toru hydropower project, located in North Sumatra, Indonesia. The project is in the middle of a Key Biodiversity Area, which designates areas of international importance in terms of biodiversity conservation, and is home to the Tapanuli orangutan, which the most endangered species of great apes, with fewer than 800 left in their only remaining habitat.

Never miss a story — sign up for CIO newsletters to stay up-to-date on the latest institutional investment industry news.

The council said it concluded that the construction of the hydropower project in Batang Toru “will have a destructive and permanent impact on the environment, which will pose a serious threat to the survival of this orangutan species as well as other critically endangered species.”

Norges Bank said PowerChina has not replied to the Council of Ethics’ investigation questions. PowerChina could not be reached for comment.

NBIM also decided to place U.K.-based oil and gas infrastructure firm Petrofac Ltd. under observation for three years due to an unacceptable risk of gross corruption or other serious financial crimes. The Council on Ethics alleges that Petrofac, or its subsidiaries, may be linked to allegations or suspicions of corruption in six countries over 15 years. It said its investigation into the company found that all of the cases relate to allegations of bribery or suspicious transactions made through subcontractors in order to win contracts for Petrofac subsidiaries.

The council noted that a former Petrofac executive pled guilty to 14 counts of bribery involving more than $80 million in kickbacks paid out to win contracts worth more than $8 billion. It also said that out of the total amount allegedly paid in bribes, the company has pled guilty to $44 million of them.

Norges Bank acknowledged that a U.K. judge said that Petrofac has significantly strengthened its compliance organization and due diligence processes and replaced large parts of the board and management since the corruption took place.

However, “uncertainty still attaches to some elements of Petrofac’s compliance program, its corporate governance, and the change in culture the company now claims to have implemented,” the council said in its recommendation. “Petrofac’s new compliance organization was also put in place not long ago, making it difficult to fully assess the impact of the company’s anti-corruption measures.”

A Petrofac spokesperson stated, “The [Serious Fraud Office]’s investigation into Petrofac concluded in October 2021, and all penalties imposed by the court have been paid by the company. Today, Petrofac has a comprehensive and robust compliance and governance regime.”

Norges Bank’s executive board also said it decided to end a special exercise of ownership in Indian chemical company UPL Ltd. In 2018, the council recommended that Norges Bank place UPL under observation; however, the executive board instead decided that the matter should be taken up with the company through active ownership over a five-year period, which has now ended.

The executive board said that, based on measures UPL and subsidiary Advanta have implemented over the course of the period, it finds the risk of future norm violations “appears to be reduced,” adding that it “has therefore decided to conclude the special dialogue with the company.”

Related Stories:

Norway’s Sovereign Wealth Fund Backs Shell, Votes Against Chevron, ExxonMobil on Climate Proposals

Norway Pension Board Puts Indonesian Firm Under Observation

Norway’s Pension Giant Adds Chinese, Indian Firms to Exclusion List

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

PBGC Updates Terminated Single-Employer Plan Benefits

The PBGC updated ambiguous regulations and practices, such as when lump sum payments are acceptable under their trusteeship.


The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation finalized new rules Tuesday concerning benefit payments from terminated single-employer plans. The changes are largely clarifications of ambiguously worded regulations and the codification of existing practices.

The final rule explains that when a single-employer plan terminates, either under a distress situation or in an involuntary termination, the PBGC normally becomes the trustee for that plan and is responsible for administering its benefits. Once under the PBGC’s trusteeship, lump sum payments are not permitted unless the amount payable to a beneficiary is “de minimis,” meaning $5,000 or less. The second exception is if a participant wants their mandatory contributions returned as a lump sum.

The PBGC clarifies that this general prohibition on lump sum payments applies even when the participant requested a lump sum prior to plan termination, but it has not yet been paid out. The PBGC will not honor the request “regardless of the reason for not paying the lump sum” unless one of the other two exceptions apply. The rule explains that investigating instances in which a participant requested a lump sum would require a burdensome “facts and circumstances analysis” that the PBGC lacks the resources to conduct.

“De minimis” amounts, for the purpose of the lump sum exception, were also clarified. Under the final rule, PBGC regulations will refer to Section 203 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act instead of a specific dollar amount. The de minimis threshold is currently $5,000, but it will be updated to $7,000 starting in 2024.

Want the latest institutional investment industry
news and insights? Sign up for CIO newsletters.

The final rule also clarifies that an estate cannot elect a life annuity upon the death of the participant. Current regulations state that an estate may elect a lump sum, which implies that the traditional alternative, a life annuity, would also be available. However, the final rule states that “a life annuity is inappropriate for an estate” and clarifies that an estate must take a lump sum payment if the participant dies.

Lastly, the PBGC clarified its rules for calculating plan assets, liabilities and a sponsor’s net worth. When a plan terminates, the PBGC attempts to recoup assets from the sponsor to make up any unfunded liabilities, considering the net worth of the sponsor in the process. The final rule explains that the PBGC currently uses a “fair market value” for assets which are easy to appraise and “fair value” for assets, such as private equity, which are harder to appraise. The final rule updates PBGC regulations to codify this existing practice.

 

Tags:

«