The Swedish Fund Selection Agency (FTN) has suggested that fund manager Indecap's legal challenge to a SEK 200bn procurement of global equity funds is primarily intended to delay the replacement of its existing fund on Sweden's premium pension platform.

In a statement submitted to the Administrative Court in Stockholm, FTN highlighted that 96.27 per cent of assets in Indecap Guide 2 originate from premium pension savers and that the firm receives SEK 10.4m in revenue for each month the fund remains on the platform.

FTN subsequently stated that it was "a reasonable assumption" that the company's primary purpose in bringing the proceedings was to delay the procurement.

The tender, announced on 26 February 2026, has been paused due to the judicial review after Indecap Fonder was unsuccessful in the procurement process.

FTN added that the proceedings were delaying reforms to the premium pension system, stating that "the review proceedings in practice delay important changes to the fund platform for premium pension savers".

FTN said it now regarded the case as "fully investigated" and argued that, for virtually all of Indecap's grounds of appeal, it was sufficient to establish that the firm had not suffered and did not risk suffering any damage.

The authority further defended its scoring process, arguing that all tenders had been assessed using the same criteria and that there were no grounds for the court to undertake a new substantive evaluation of Indecap's submission.

FTN argued that Indecap's tender was so far behind rival submissions that it could not credibly claim to have lost out on a mandate as a result of any alleged procedural shortcomings.

"Indecap's tender received such low scores in the evaluation compared with its competitors that it is not tenable to claim that the company has missed out on a fund agreement," the authority stated.

On that basis, FTN maintained that the requirement for damage had not been met and that there were no grounds for the procurement to be corrected or re-run.

The authority also defended the procurement process itself, arguing that procurements carried out under the Act on the Procurement of Funds for the Premium Pension Fund Platform (LUP) fall outside the scope of EU procurement directives because they concern the right to purchase fund units rather than the procurement of services.

FTN further rejected Indecap's claims relating to fund evaluation criteria, electronic signatures, conflicts of interest documentation and the merger of the ‘Global’ and ‘Global and Sweden’ fund categories.

Indecap is seeking a review of FTN's procurement of actively managed global equity funds, arguing that the process should be corrected or re-run. Among other claims, the firm has challenged FTN's use of procurement rules, aspects of the evaluation process and the treatment of competing bids.

European Pensions has contacted Indecap for comment.

---