Posted by Pension Info 4 on 12/13/2005, 9:03 pm, in reply to "Re: Cliff Evans & UFCW Pension" Do CCWIPP Trustees conduct adequate due diligence before committing millions of members' dollars towards high-risk investments in hotels, real estate and other ventures? Last we heard, Paul Scarponi was still working as a real estate agent, Rod Stewart impersonator and entertainment promoter. In 1997 he was the organizer of a tribute event called Mirage in Concert which kicked off that year's opening of the Canadian National Exhibition. According to a local media report, the event featured entertainers making like Madonna, Michael Jackson, Tina Turner, Elton John, Roy Orbison, and The Blues Brothers. "We're creating an illusion", Scarponi is quoted as saying. You're not the only one Paul. At least your illusions are entertaining and the performers know what they're doing. The Financial Services Commission of Ontario continues its ongoing examintion of CCWIPP. That examination has been ongoing for almost two years now. There does not appear to be an end in sight. Meanwhile, CCWIPP continues to pour its members' money into hopeless investments like this Bahamian Resort and this California company of which Cliff Evans is Chairman and, possibly this condo conversion project. Evans and other CCWIPP Investment Committee members continue to control dozens of investment corporations that flow the money to high risk low yield destinations. The CCWIPP trustees dutifully give their decisions the seal of approval. Big dollars flow each year into the pockets of numerous advisors and consulting companies - some of which are controlled by the CCWIPP trustees - for their expert advice. In 1995, for instance, the law firm of Loopstra Nixon billed CCWIPP $13,845. In 1996, its tab was $64,647. In 1995 actuarial consultants Turnbull and Turnbill got CCWIPP $310,302. In 1996, their tab was $152,251. In 1997, $227,129 was paid out to certain unnamed "Investment Managers". In 1998, the unnamed managers received $221,270. The bellying up to the CCWIPP trough continues. According to CCWIPP's financial statement for 2003, $1.2 million was paid out for consulting - almost $1 million of that to a company controlled by CCWIPP trustees, $1.3 million was paid for investment services. $266 million is tied up in equity, loans and mortgages invested through investment corporations like Propco 10. $70 million in loans are in default. $7 million worth of interest has been deferred on other loans. It seems that the only people not getting a good deal out of CCWIPP are its members. On May 1, 2004 , a CCWIPP member posted this update in MfD Forum: I have just received a notice in the mail advising me of a change in my CCWIPP Pension Plan. It states: A combination of low interest rates, difficult investment markets and regulatory requirements has resulted in the board of Trustees of the Canadian Commercial Workers Industrial Pension Plan having to allocate contributions in the amount of three cents per hour (three cent requirement) to support the benefits already accured under the Pension Plan. In order to protect benefit entitlements already earned to May 1,2004, the board of trustees has decided that any increase in contributions on or after that date(existing collective agreements or renegotiated collective agreements) will first be used to offset the three-cent requirement before the benefit level is adjusted upwards. If however, no increase in contributions is negotiated upon the renewal of your collective agreement, and the three-cent requirement has not been accommodated previously, your current service benefit level will be adjusted, at that time. The three cent requirement will be reviewed annually and eliminated when it is appropirate, financially, to do so. Respectfully Submitted, Creating illusions is a full time job for a lot of people.
69.159.28.22
The questions raised by the Scarponi investment are just as familiar:
Do CCWIPP trustees benefit personally from their dual roles as trustees or directors of CCWIPP or both? Do they receive director's fees, commissions, bonuses and other rumuneration?
Who benefits the most from the easy terms - CCWIPP members or the guys who get their money?
Scarponi's lawsuit was finally dismissed in 1999. While we have no way of knowing exactly how much money was spent by CCWIPP and Propco 10 in connection with the lawsuit, it's safe to say that it cost the members something. It's also fair to say that if CCWIPP had chosen not to become involved with Scarponi in the first instance, it would have cost the members nothing.
Bernard Christophe
Chairman, Board of Trustees
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message Thread:
« Back to thread