UK: The Unilever/MAM Case: What are the Issues for Pension Scheme Trustees?

Last Updated: 6 February 2002

The enormous press coverage of the High Court battle between the trustee of the Unilever Superannuation Fund and Mercury Asset Management (now taken over by Merrill Lynch), coming swiftly after the publication of the Government’s response to Paul Myners’ review of institutional investment in the UK, has put the duties of the investment manager to their pension scheme trustee clients centre stage.

Merrill Lynch paid a reported £70 million to settle the case during the course of the trial. In view of this substantial settlement, many pension scheme trustees will be considering whether they should initiate negotiations for compensation with their investment managers where there has been a prolonged period of significant under-performance against an agreed benchmark.

As the parties reached a settlement there is no legal precedent and we have no clear guidance on the issues raised. Furthermore, the terms of the settlement did not include any admission of liability on the part of Merrill Lynch. We can only guess whether the impetus to settle arose primarily from a need to limit damaging press coverage or from more substantive legal grounds. We believe that it would be unwise to deduce from the fact of settlement too strong a conclusion about the likelihood of liability in other cases.

In this briefing we consider the facts of the Unilever case and discuss in what possible circumstances trustees might want to consider following in the footsteps of the trustee of the Unilever Superannuation Fund.

The Unilever v. MAM litigation

The trustee of the Unilever Superannuation Fund (the Unilever trustee) sued Mercury Asset Management (MAM) for £130 million on the basis that MAM breached its contractual obligation to exercise the highest standards of care and expertise in its management of the Unilever fund. The Unilever trustee also asserted that MAM had negligently mismanaged the fund by failing to take sufficient account of the risk of under-performance and by failing to contain the risk of breaching the downside tolerance contained in the investment management agreement.

MAM started to manage the funds in 1987, and a new investment management agreement (the Agreement) was negotiated to take effect from the start of 1997 that set out new investment objectives and guidelines. The Agreement contained an objective for the fund to produce a return of 1% in excess of the benchmark over periods since the inception of the portfolio subject to a minimum period of three years. Unusually the Agreement contained a term that stated that in normal circumstances the return would not be expected to be more than 3% below the benchmark in any period of 4 successive calendar quarters. The Agreement also provided that MAM should exercise the highest standards of care and expertise in carrying out its duties and fulfilling its obligations under the Agreement. Between 1997 and 1998 the Unilever fund managed by MAM under-performed the agreed benchmark by a cumulative return of 10.5%. The Unilever trustee terminated the Agreement in March 1998.

The Unilever trustee asserted both breach of contract and negligence by MAM. In any contractual relationship for the provision of professional services, it will be an implied term of the contract that the services provided for management of the fund will be rendered with reasonable skill, care and diligence. This can be framed, as here, as a claim in contract and negligence. In both cases the investment manager’s conduct would be measured by the standards which it would be reasonable to expect of a comparable and competent investment manager in all the circumstances of the case. Whether there was debate over "highest standards" as referred to in the Agreement and the more usual standard of "reasonable care and skill" is not apparent from the public information on the case. Discussion in court appears to have centred around establishing whether or not MAM had failed to meet the standards of skill, care and diligence reasonably to be expected of a comparable and competent investment manager. It is important to note that it was not alleged that MAM guaranteed that the downside tolerance would not be exceeded.

Risk Control Techniques

In order to achieve a return in excess of a benchmark it is necessary for a portfolio to diverge from an exact match to the composition of the benchmark with the objective that the divergences will generate an out-performance of the benchmark to the degree desired. This divergence inevitably carries with it a risk that the portfolio will in fact under-perform the benchmark. The Unilever trustee tried to limit the under-performance by controlling the extent of the divergence from the benchmark by including the 3% downside tolerance in the Agreement.

The Unilever trustee claimed that the negligent mismanagement/breach of contract arose from MAM failing to take sufficient account of the risk of under-performance, and failing to take steps to contain that risk. In evidence of this assertion the Unilever trustee pointed to the fact that the Unilever fund’s UK equity fund had a major and disproportionate exposure to the general industries sector, and was underweight in every other sector, most notably in the financial sector. The Unilever trustee stated that "this was a substantial risk to take and left the UK equity fund heavily exposed if, as happened, general industries turned out to be the worst performing sector, while financials produced the best return."

The Unilever fund managed by MAM had a very high stock concentration. The fund was concentrated in 43-63 stocks, with over 75% of the stock concentrated in 20 stocks. Within that concentrated portfolio there was a number of holdings of particular stocks where the size of the holding was out of all proportion to the contribution of the stock to the FTSE All Share Index. Again, the Unilever trustee asserted that this showed a failure to operate the risk control techniques that would have been expected of a competent investment manager with the same remit.

The Unilever trustee also relied on the performance of other specialist managers and funds to show that MAM’s risk control fell below industry standards. MAM were shown to be in the 100th percentile rank in respect of the performance of the Unilever fund’s UK equities fund.

Employee Management

The Unilever trustee claimed that the level of risk to which the fund was exposed increased significantly when a junior manager, Mr Lennard, took over the running of the fund.

During the hearing, the Unilever trustee tried to prove that MAM had failed to supervise Lennard properly and had few or no employee risk management checks in place.

As the parties reached a settlement there is no precedent: we have no clearer idea of the extent of the duty of care owed by investment managers to their clients as a result.

We do, however, consider below the different categories of trustees who could consider seeking compensation from their investment managers and the legal basis for doing so.

Further claims

Clearly trustees who have suffered prolonged under-performance may want to consider their legal position.

Claims in respect of liability for failure to meet a benchmark are likely to centre around breach of contract and negligence, as we have seen in the Unilever case.

If it is a term of the contract that the benchmark will be met, then there will be liability for failure to meet it and it will be irrelevant why it was that the performance fell short of the benchmark. The question of whether a benchmark forms a term of the investment management agreement is not one which can be answered in the abstract: the terms of the individual investment management agreements will have to be considered. However, agreements are unlikely to contain such a term as it would effectively operate as a guarantee that the benchmark would be met.

If it is not a term of the contract that the benchmark will be met, a failure to meet the benchmark should not of itself determine whether the manager had been negligent. However, the reasons why the performance fell short of the benchmark would have to be explored. If the rest of the market achieved much better performance for comparable funds over the same period, it may be that there is a basis for concluding that the management of the particular fund was negligent. A failure to meet the benchmark, especially if this was by an appreciable margin, could well be taken as evidence of that.

A spokesman for Merrill Lynch has stated that the "contract with Unilever was unique and it did not expect to see any further claims". The question here is how central to the Unilever trustee’s success in achieving a substantial settlement was the fact that their agreement with MAM contained a defined downside tolerance? It is important to note that, as mentioned earlier in the briefing, the Unilever trustee did not allege that MAM guaranteed that the defined downside tolerance would not be exceeded. A defined downside tolerance is a clear indicator of the level of loss that the trustees would tolerate and the level of risk that was acceptable to them, but an absence of such a term would not prevent trustees from bringing a claim for negligence on the basis that their investment manager did not manage the fund with reasonable care, skill and diligence.

Ongoing Investment Management Arrangements

To avoid litigation or disappointment, trustees must ensure that their attitude to risk has been properly understood by the investment manager from the outset. They should also ensure that their attitude to risk is properly documented. In his report on institutional investment in the UK, published last year, Paul Myners recommended that trustees should agree an explicit written mandate with their investment managers covering agreement between the trustees and managers on:

  • an objective, benchmark(s) and risk parameters that together with all the other mandates are coherent with the fund’s aggregate objective and risk tolerances;
  • the manager’s approach in attempting to achieve this objective; and
  • clear timescales of measurement and evaluation, such that the mandate will not be terminated before the expiry of the evaluation timescale for under-performance alone.

This recommendation has been adopted by the Government as constituting "best practice" for schemes.

What is clear from the Unilever case in this respect is that trustees have reason to monitor their investment managers closely, and should either actively communicate with them in order to do so, or appoint someone to do this for them.

Furthermore, trustees should remember that under the Pensions Act 1995, in order to avoid liability for the acts and defaults of their investment managers, they must take all steps as are reasonable to satisfy themselves that their investment manager:

  • has the appropriate knowledge and experience for managing the investments of the scheme;
  • is carrying out his work competently;
  • has regard to the need for diversification of investments, in so far as is appropriate to the circumstances of the scheme, and the suitability to the scheme of the description of investment proposed.

© Herbert Smith 2002

The content of this article does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied on as such. Specific advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

For more information on this or other Herbert Smith publications, please email us."

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.