Directors' personal liability for unpaid pension contributions: what employers need to know
In today's challenging economic climate, many companies face financial distress and even insolvency. However, recent legal developments make it clear that financial hardship is no excuse for failing to meet statutory obligations, particularly the obligation to pay over retirement fund contributions deducted from employees' salaries.
This was the view of the Western Cape Division High Court in Engineering Industries Pension Fund v Installair (Pty) Ltd and Others (1633/2023) [2025] ZAWCHC 8 (16 January 2025), which confirmed that financial distress cannot shield employers from the consequences of non-compliance. This case underscores the legal duty of employers to comply with retirement fund obligations, and it highlights the potential for directors to be held personally liable for non-compliance.
Legal framework
The Pension Funds Act 24 of 1956 (the PFA) aims to protect the retirement savings and financial security of members by ensuring that contributions are properly deducted, managed, and remitted to the relevant fund. It sets out clear employer obligations, including the timely and full payment of contributions, and holds directors personally liable in cases of non-compliance. This reinforces trust in the retirement system and ensures that employee benefits are protected, regardless of an employer's financial challenges.
Section 13A of the PFA plays a critical role in ensuring compliance. Section 13A(1) requires employers to pay both employee and employer contributions in full and on time. It also obliges the principal officer of the fund to report instances of non-payment to the board. Where an employer fails to comply, directors may be held personally liable.
Accordingly, section 13A of the PFA and its subsections provide clear guidance on the establishment, implementation, and maintenance of effective compliance in respect of pension fund contributions. Furthermore, the section creates a robust enforcement mechanism to ensure that financial distress cannot be used as a justification for withholding retirement fund contributions.
Case background
In brief, the facts of this case are that the Engineering Industries Pension Fund (the Fund) sought to recover outstanding pension and provident fund contributions from Installair (Pty) Ltd (the Company) for the period May 2020 to July 2020. In addition, the Fund sought to hold the Company's directors personally liable for the unpaid contributions. The Fund relied on the provisions of: section 13A(1), which mandates employers to pay both employee and employer contributions to the retirement fund in full and on time; section 13A(7) which provides for the personal liability of individuals responsible for ensuring the employer's compliance with its obligations; section 13A(8), which imposes personal liability on directors who are regularly involved in the management of the employer's financial affairs; and section 13A(9), which requires retirement funds to notify employers in writing of individuals who may be held personally liable, read with Regulation 33 (promulgated under the PFA but since repealed).
At the time of the application, the Company was in liquidation, and no relief was sought against it. Instead, the Fund pursued relief against the Company's directors. The directors acknowledged that during the relevant period, the Company had deducted pension and provident fund contributions from employees' salaries but failed to remit them to the Fund. Instead, the amounts deducted were used to subsidise employee salaries, due to the Company's financial distress. The directors argued that the failure to pay was due to circumstances beyond their control and contended that they had not acted recklessly or negligently.
One director also claimed that section 13A(8) of the PFA should not apply to her, as she was not involved in the financial affairs of the Company. The directors further argued that liability under section 13(8) arises only where directors are unable to meet statutory obligations due to circumstances within their control and where there has been reckless or negligent conduct, which they denied.
The Court found that the directors were actively involved in managing the Company's financial affairs and had clearly failed to meet their statutory obligations under the PFA. The defences advanced were described as "far-fetched" and "untenable" and were summarily rejected. The Court accordingly held the directors personally liable for the unpaid contributions, ordering them to pay the outstanding amounts, together with accrued interest. The Court also dismissed the argument that the Covid-19 pandemic justified the employer's failure to remit contributions. Notably, the period in question (January to March 2020) preceded the national lockdown, which was only imposed on 26 March 2020. As the Company was fully operational during this time, the pandemic could not be used as an excuse for non-compliance. With no valid defence presented, the Court held the directors liable for the outstanding pension contributions. The Court also emphasised that a failure to issue an order in favour of vulnerable groups would constitute a dereliction of its constitutional duty.
The Court noted that the rise in withdrawal claims under the two-pot retirement system has highlighted persistent non-compliance with pension contribution obligations, a trend that threatens the financial security of retirees. This case serves as a strong reminder that enforcement of pension fund compliance is not only a legal obligation but a moral imperative to protect employee's long-term financial interests.
Obiter findings of the Court
In Engineering Industries Pension Fund v Installair (Pty) Ltd supra, prior to delivering its findings on the directors' liability, the Western Cape High Court highlighted the inherent challenges introduced by the two-pot retirement system and the practical implications of employers failing to remit pension contributions. The Court noted that such non-compliance has "cast a long shadow over this approach". The surge in withdrawal claims under the two-pot system has not only exposed serious gaps in employer compliance but also demonstrated that retirees, and those anticipating access to their retirement benefits ultimately bear the brunt of employer default.
The 'two pot impact' in this context refers to the dual consequences of non-compliance with pension fund contribution obligations. Firstly, when employers fail to remit the deducted contributions, the intended 'pot' of funds meant to safeguard employees' future financial security is compromised. This undermines retirement savings, reduces expected benefits, and erodes trust in the pension system. Secondly, the case reinforces that directors who are actively involved in a company's financial affairs cannot rely on financial distress as a defence.
The law imposes personal liability for non-remittance of contributions, holding directors directly accountable, exposing them to financial, reputational, and legal consequences. Engineering Industries Pension Fund v Installair (Pty) Ltd is not the only case in which the Courts have taken a firm view on unpaid retirement fund contributions. In Mafoko Security Patrols Pty Ltd v Kheledi and Others (2023/036840; 2023/057409; 2023/085922; 2023/086107) [2025] ZAGPJHC 252 (7 March 2025), where the employer blatantly ignored the Pension Fund Adjudicator's determinations to pay outstanding pension contributions, the Court upheld the Adjudicator's orders, confirming that the workers were entitled to the unpaid contributions and awarding costs. Furthermore, in National Fund for Municipal Workers v Tswaing Local Municipality & Another [PFA25/2020] (19 August 2020), the Financial Services Tribunal found that while section 13A of the PFA does provide for personal liability where contributions are unpaid, this liability is not primary, the employer remains primarily liable for the outstanding contributions.
Key takeaways for employers and retirement funds
In conclusion, employers, and particularly retirement funds, are urged to implement robust financial controls and regularly review compliance policies to ensure that all pension contributions are paid promptly and accurately, in accordance with the PFA and the rules of the relevant fund. This will go a long way in shielding directors and companies from severe legal penalties and reputational harm.
It bears emphasising that even in the face of financial difficulty, diverting retirement fund contributions for other uses is strictly prohibited. Directors cannot rely on financial distress as a defence to escape personal liability for unpaid contributions.
These cases underscore a crucial legal principle: employers cannot avoid their pension obligations through delay tactics or legal posturing. The courts have made it clear that accountability in fulfilling statutory duties is non-negotiable. Companies that ignore these obligations do so at their peril.
* Van Vuuren is a partner and Tshshonga is a trainee attorney at Webber Wentzel.
PERSONAL FINANCE
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
6 days ago
- IOL News
Understanding private assets: a guide for new investors
Explore the growing trend of private assets in investment portfolios, understand the benefits and risks, and learn how to navigate this evolving market as an individual investor. Image: File Over the next few years, individual investors are expected to increase their allocation to private markets, in some cases potentially approaching levels seen by various types of institutional investors. The compelling return history for private market investment is clearly a key motivator for these allocations. Schroders Capital research shows this is the main reason institutional investors enter private markets, and we have no reason to believe individual investors think any differently. Over the past five years, smaller clients have also been offered more options to invest in private markets thanks to product development, changing regulations, and technological advancements. New regulated fund structures such as the long-term asset fund (LTAF) in the UK, the European long-term investment fund (ELTIF) in Europe, and UCI Part II have been a game changer for accessing private markets, as well as for the increased use and further development of evergreen open-ended funds. While promoting access to private markets with these new structures, regulators around the world have also been tightening rules to protect smaller investors. For example, in the UK, clients must confirm they meet certain investment criteria, undergo a suitability review by their financial advisor, and have a 24-hour cooling-off period to reconsider their decisions. The South African regulator requires investors to meet the criteria of a qualified investor as per the definition in section 96(1)(a) of the South African Companies Act, No. 71 or 2008 as amended, and/or to have a minimum of R1 million to invest in terms of section 96(1)(b) of the South African Companies Act. Bain & Company estimates that by 2032, 30% of global assets under management could be allocated to alternatives, with a large chunk in private assets. While private investors currently allocate only up to 5% of their portfolios to private markets, we anticipate that the gap with institutional investors will narrow significantly over time, and private markets will become commonplace. The growing appeal of private markets Of course, returns aren't the only reason to use private assets, even if it's high on the client's agenda. Characteristics like stable income and genuine diversification, which have the potential to significantly enhance overall portfolio resilience, add to the appeal. It is also about the opportunity set. In public markets, there is an increasing concentration of stocks, with more than 30% of the S&P 500 dominated by just a handful of companies, leading to a narrower range of options. In contrast, the number of private companies, and those staying private for longer, continues to grow. Private companies in the US with revenues of $250 million or more now account for 86% of the total. Additionally, the number of public listings in the US has more than halved over the past 20 years compared to the period from 1980 to 1999, highlighting the shift towards private market opportunities (see chart). In South Africa, the last five years have seen an average of 24 companies delist from local stock exchanges on an annual basis, although 2024 showed a significant slowdown in this rate as only 11 companies exited the public market. The Johannesburg Stock Exchange is also highly concentrated, with a few large companies dominating the index. And it's not just a matter of numbers. Private companies tend to be more agile and innovative in their operations compared to public companies, and they can access opportunities in sectors where public companies have limited or no reach. For example, the new US tariff policies are likely to affect both public and private companies, particularly those vulnerable to supply chain disruptions. However, private companies tend to be more flexible in restructuring their supply chains to adapt to these changes, potentially avoiding cost increases. Nevertheless, companies heavily impacted may still face higher costs, affecting profitability, and therefore valuations and deals. Public markets continue to shrink, and companies are staying private for longer Number of public listings per annum in the US vs PE-backed. Image: Supplied. Once the decision to allocate to the asset class has been made, what is next? How do investors actually start their private assets journey, and what can they expect the journey to look like? Pacing is different One of the key differences with private asset investment is in the pacing of capital deployment. With no immediate secondary market to provide liquidity, allocations can and should be structured to, in a sense, create their own liquidity. Structured correctly, private asset allocations can become 'self-sustaining' over time, with distributions and income funding new investments to maintain a target allocation. What does that mean in practice? Many fund managers, or general partners (GPs), raise capital every year in what is known as 'vintages'. Each vintage represents a discrete fund that has an investment phase and a harvesting phase. The investment phase is when the capital is put to work, typically for about 3-5 years, depending on which part of the private assets market it's in, and what the market backdrop is like. The harvesting phase is when the invested assets are exited, generating capital that can be distributed back to investors. This is typically around 5-7 years after the investment is first made in what is known as an 'exit'. Private equity managers will use the term 'exits' because, while selling an asset is an option, it's only one of many options available. The routes to exit are varied but most commonly the company is either floated in an IPO (initial public offering), sold to another corporate buyer or private equity investor, or sold into a continuation vehicle. In private debt, the fund managers (there is often a cohort of lenders) will structure lending in such a way that the capital is returned at the end of a defined timeframe, having received the cashflows. These cashflows can then be used to refinance ('re-up' is a term often used) subsequent vintages. Private assets portfolio becomes self-financing after 5-7 years Private assets portfolio becomes self-financing after 5-7 years. Image: Supplied. In recent years, new exit routes have emerged, especially in the secondary market, with the continuation vehicles mentioned above. That's because these deals allow the GPs to provide a liquidity mechanism to their existing investors, the limited partners (LPs), while at the same time holding onto key assets for longer to maximise value. Continuation funds have evolved to become a common strategy for GPs to hold onto high-performing assets, or pools of assets, beyond the life of the original fund. Vintage years, consistent deployment, and the impact on returns A vintage year allocation approach has the benefit of mitigating the risk associated with market timing. Despite our optimism for the mid-to-long-term outlook for private assets, the near term is undoubtedly going to be challenging for many investors, and keeping up a steady investment pace may be difficult. While exit and fundraising activity seemed to have bottomed out in 2024 following a prolonged slowdown since 2022, risks and uncertainty in markets have increased sharply since the start of the year. As we pointed out above, this is mainly due to the uncertainties caused by the US government policy changes and the impacts these may have on economies and markets. In addition to broader concerns over performance, when markets fall, some investors face the 'denominator effect'. Private assets tend to correct less than other more liquid asset classes due to the way they are valued, so their relative weight in an investor's portfolio tends to increase when markets fall sharply. This can limit investors' ability to make new investments into the asset class and maintain a determined percentage allocation. Nevertheless, research suggests investors don't have to shy away from new investments in periods of crisis or recession. A recent analysis from Schroders Capital shows that private equity consistently outperformed listed markets during the largest market crises of the past 25 years. Despite challenges such as high interest rates, inflation, and economic volatility, private equity outperformed public markets and experienced smaller drawdowns, with distributions becoming less volatile over time. Meanwhile, recession years tend to yield vintages that perform exceptionally well. Structurally, funds can benefit from 'time diversification', where capital is deployed over several years, rather than all in one go. This allows funds raised in recession years to pick up assets at depressed values as the recession plays out. The assets can then pursue an exit later on, in the recovery phase, when valuations are rising. For example, our analysis shows that the average internal rate of return ('IRR') of private equity funds raised in a recession year has been higher than for funds raised in the years in the run-up to a recession, which, at the time, probably felt like much happier times. For private debt and real estate, there are similar effects. For infrastructure, the effects should also show a similar pattern; however, longer-term data is limited in this part of the asset class. Private equity vintage performance (average of median net IRRs) Private equity vintage performance (average of median net IRRs). Image: Supplied. Past performance is not a guide to future performance and may not be repeated. Source: Preqin, Schroders Capital, 2022. There are 9,834 funds in the Preqin database. Only funds with vintage years after 1980 and 2017 are analysed. 220 funds that were out of distribution were excluded, reducing the number of funds in our universe to 3,400. Private equity-only investments, venture debt, and funds of fund strategies have been excluded. Pacing illustration for an investor Appropriate allocations to private assets will, of course, vary by client and will always be led by overall suitability. Important factors such as a client's overall income and expenditure, time horizon, investment understanding/experience, appetite for borrowing, and ability to tolerate illiquidity are all factors we consider when deciding on exposure to private assets. For the sake of illustration, though, let us assume all individual clients fall within one of four risk brackets: cautious, balanced, growth, and aggressive. What would the investment pacing look like for the private asset allocation? For a client on a growth risk mandate (this would mean a typical exposure to equities of between 50-80%) who has a good understanding of investments, a target allocation of 20% might be appropriate across private debt, private equity, and real estate. How private assets could fit within a portfolio How private assets could fit within a portfolio. Image: Supplied. It's important to note that the nature of investing in private assets means that allocations should be built up over time to ensure vintage diversification and that we explicitly recommend diversification by investment and vintage. While we want to diversify by asset class, we also suggest spreading investments across a range of structures. This usually depends on the investable assets and the investor's ability to accept illiquidity, noting that private investors could benefit from different structure types. For example, clients with large investable asset bases that have the ability to lock up their money for 10 years plus, can use the traditional routes, such as closed-ended structures. Otherwise, clients with lower minimum entry points and with an uncertain time horizon are able to use 'evergreen' open-ended funds: these funds do not have a pre-determined lifespan and can run in perpetuity, recycling investment proceeds and raising new capital as required. While clients investing in evergreen funds are able to access their money periodically, they need to understand these are still long-term commitments and that there are established limits and rules on when and how much they can withdraw. It's important that investors be educated and prepared for their allocation to be left untouched for an extended period. Private equity funds typically run for at least seven years, during which time the allocation will not be liquid. The realisation of the assets will also take several years, tapering down in the same way the allocation is gradually ramped up. This is why a complete, ongoing understanding of a client's overall financial position is crucial when considering building a private assets allocation. Private Assets - Investment risk: Past performance is not a guide to future performance. The value of an investment and the income from it may go down as well as up and investors may not get back the amount originally invested. Investors should only invest in private assets (and other illiquid and high-risk assets) if they are prepared and have the ability to sustain a total loss of their investment. No representation has been or can be made as to the future performance of these investments. Whilst investment in private assets can offer the potential of higher than average returns, it also involves a corresponding higher degree of risk and is only considered appropriate for sophisticated investors who can understand, evaluate, and afford to take that risk. Private Assets are more illiquid than other types of investments. Any secondary market tends to be very limited. Investors may well not be able to realise their investment before the relevant exit dates. * Krekis is a portfolio director at Cazenove Capital, part of the Schroders Group. PERSONAL FINANCE
IOL News
11-05-2025
- IOL News
Pension funds must comply with PFA information requests, says Muvhango Lukhaimane
The Pension Funds Adjudicator, Muvhango Lukhaimane, asserts that pension funds must provide requested information without beneficiary consent, clarifying the PFA's authority under the Protection of Personal Information Act. A pension fund is obliged to provide the Pension Funds Adjudicator (PFA) with requested information without obtaining consent from beneficiaries, says Muvhango Lukhaimane, the PFA. According to Lukhaimane, funds cannot use the Protection of Personal Information Act (POPIA) as an excuse to withhold information from the PFA. She says that as a public body, as defined in the Act, the PFA has the right to access personal information when performing its duties. This came to light in a recent determination, where Lukhaimane made it clear that the PFA falls within the definition of a tribunal under POPIA and is permitted to collect personal information when necessary for its investigations. The issue arose when a fund initially refused to provide its investigation report to the PFA, citing the need to protect beneficiaries' personal details. Only after being reminded that POPIA allows the PFA to process personal information in the exercise of its powers and duties, did the fund comply with the request. Lukhaimane clarified that, in matters involving death benefits, the PFA's role is to assess whether the board acted rationally, reasonably, and within the law. 'Therefore, a fund cannot hide behind POPIA and bears the onus of demonstrating that it has conducted a proper investigation per section 37C,' she says. The Financial Services Tribunal further reinforced this point, stating that the PFA should insist on investigation reports to confirm that funds have provided sufficient information to justify their allocations. A recent complaint brought before the PFA highlighted the consequences of inadequate investigations. The case involved the Eskom Pension and Provident Fund, which was tasked with allocating a lump sum death benefit of R560,160 following the passing of a pension fund member. The board distributed the benefit among the deceased's customary spouse, life partner, and children, but Lukhaimane was not satisfied that a thorough investigation had been conducted to justify the final distribution. She ruled that the fund had a duty to actively investigate the extent of each beneficiary's financial dependency on the deceased to ensure an equitable allocation. The deceased had nominated his customary spouse to receive 80% of the benefit, with 10% allocated to his life partner and the remainder to two of his children. However, the actual allocation deviated significantly from his wishes: 28% was allocated to his customary spouse 28% to his life partner Two percent each to five major children 30% to a minor child Two percent each to two other minor children The fund justified its decision by arguing that the life partner qualified as the deceased's factual dependant, given that she was 50 years old, unemployed, and had no immediate income prospects. However, Lukhaimane found that the board had failed to give sufficient weight to the beneficiary nomination form, which must be a substantial factor in any decision on death benefits. Lukhaimane stressed that the law recognises three categories of dependants: Legal dependants – Those for whom the deceased had a legal duty of support, such as spouses and children. Factual dependants – Individuals who relied on the deceased for financial support, but for whom there was no legal obligation. Future dependants – Those who could have become financially reliant on the deceased over time. While qualifying as a legal or factual dependant does not automatically entitle someone to a portion of the benefit, the determining factor remains financial dependency. Lukhaimane says dependants must not be left destitute by the death of the deceased, which places an obligation on the funds to actively investigate the financial circumstances of each beneficiary. 'There must be a good reason for a fund not to give effect to a nomination, to justify its decision to deviate from the wishes of the deceased,' she ruled. She also criticised the Eskom Pension and Provident Fund for failing to gather adequate proof of dependency, stating: 'The fund indicated that the complainant and the deceased's major children failed to provide proof of the extent of their financial dependency on the deceased. However, there is a duty on the fund to actively investigate this before making an allocation.' In this case, the board's decision was set aside, reinforcing the importance of transparent and fair decision-making in pension funds. Ultimately, she says pension funds have a duty to ensure that dependants receive what they are entitled to, not through assumption or incomplete investigations, but through rigorous and well-documented financial assessments. PERSONAL FINANCE
TimesLIVE
09-05-2025
- TimesLIVE
Nigeria has repaid R61bn Covid-19 funding, says IMF
Nigeria has repaid $3.4bn (R61.82bn) in emergency funding it received from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to help the country cope with the impact of the coronavirus pandemic five years ago, the global lender said on Thursday. In April 2020 the IMF provided the financing to help Africa's largest oil exporter cope with a collapse in crude prices, which hit its finances and tipped the economy into recession. IMF resident representative to Nigeria Christian Ebeke said in a statement that, as of April 30, the country had "fully repaid the financial support" it received under the Fund's Rapid Financing Instrument, a facility that provides urgent balance of payments funding to member nations. "Nigeria is expected to honour some additional payments in the form of Special Drawing Rights charges of about $30m [R545.4m] annually," Ebeke added. The most recent data from the Debt Management Office shows that Nigeria last year spent $4.66bn (R84.72bn) to service its foreign debt, of which $1.63bn (R29.64bn) was to the IMF.
