Rutland Partners, the former owner of Bernard Matthews rejected a buyout that would have protected the company’s pension scheme, correspondence published by the Work and Pensions Committee has revealed.

According to a letter from Boparan Private Office to the Committee, Rutland Partners rejected an offer that would have protected the pension scheme and instead opted for an insolvency process that ensured a greater return for them.

Bernard Matthews was sold to BPO by Rutland Partners in September 2016 via a pre-pack administration process overseen by Deloitte. The insolvency procedure used by Rutland Partners led to the Bernard Matthews defined benefit pension scheme, with a deficit of up to £75m, being disregarded and sent to the Pension Protection Fund.

As a result of this, the Bernard Matthews pension scheme members now face cuts to their retirement income.

Letters published today, however, suggest that this outcome could have been avoided as BPO had offered to buy the company and take on the responsibility for the full liabilities of the pension scheme. Nonetheless, this offer was rejected by Rutland Partners as it meant it would have to write off the majority of its outstanding loans to the company it owned.

Instead, Bernard Matthews was placed into a pre-pack administration which delivered a beneficial financial outcome for Rutland Partners, but reduced the potential outcome for pension scheme members.

In addition, Deloitte’s letter also confirms that the deal did not involve assurance to the pension scheme or the PPF to protect pension scheme members. Also, scheme trustees did not agree to the loss of their secured claim, therefore an application to the High Court was necessary to force this through.

The Bernard Matthews scheme is currently being assessed by the PPF, with a claim for the full section 75 debt due to the scheme, estimated at up to £75m.

Work and Pensions Committee chair Rt Hon Frank Field MP, said: “I have confidence that the PPF, working with the scheme trustees, will act in the best interests of the pensioners, but it’s clear that the former owners passed up a better deal for pension scheme members in favour of lining their own pockets.”

Share Story: