There are many different types of mergers and acquisitions (M&A) transactions, making it very important to understand the overall deal structure and process. Andrew C. Liazos presented “Mergers and Acquisitions Webinar Series Part 2: The Due Diligence Process” for the CLE Program as part of the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits and the American College of Employee Benefits Counsel. He discussed the overall architecture of a deal, including the parties involved, what drives the deal structure, where to get data, price negotiations and more. The presentation focused on specific M&A areas including pension, other retirement and executive benefits.
Andrew Liazos and Allison Wilkerson wrote this bylined article on Tax Code Section 409A’s deferral and payment requirements for nonqualified deferred compensation plans. Recent IRS Section 409A guidance makes “several helpful changes that employers will want to consider and take advantage of,” the authors wrote, and they warned employers that they ignore final IRS “at their peril…in light of the more limited ability to correct errors.”
A US District Court recently dismissed a claim that an insider’s election to satisfy an income tax obligation by having shares withheld from the delivery of an award constituted a non-exempt sale of shares back to the issuer for purposes of Section 16(b) of the Exchange Act, unless the share withholding was required, rather than merely permitted.
While an encouraging development, this decision is now on appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and there are similar unresolved complaints in other jurisdictions. Until this matter is resolved, public companies should continue to consider what steps are appropriate to avoid Section 16 exposure and to review this situation with their executive officers.
The 2016 proposed regulations significantly expanded 457(f) plan sponsors’ ability to permit elective deferrals, use noncompetition agreements and make larger severance payments than otherwise permitted under 409A without immediate taxation to participants. In a recent presentation, Ruth Wimer, Mary Samsa and Joseph Urwitz discuss the surprising opportunities with respect to tax-exempt and governmental entities’ “ineligible nonqualified deferred compensation” arrangements in 2016 regulations. They also address the rules and limitations of the short-term deferral exception, the interaction of the 2016 regulations with existing regulations, other types of arrangements potentially affected, as well as best practices for employers.
In Revenue Procedure 2017-37, 2017-21 IRB, the IRS issued the annual inflation-adjusted contribution, deductible and out-of-pocket expense limits for 2018 for HSAs. For clear comparison, we have outlined the changes from 2017 to 2018.
McDermott will be holding its annual Employee Benefits Innovators Roundtable Series this month. The roundtables offer experienced benefits professionals an opportunity to discuss cutting-edge, topical employer-driven benefit programs with their peers and members of McDermott’s employee benefits team. We are meeting in four locations this year. Join us in one of the following cities:
The federal government’s focus on pay equity and pay data, and the passage of groundbreaking equal pay laws in a number of states, has been one of the biggest employment law developments of 2016. Litigation involving pay equity claims has also risen in the past year. Given the increased focus on pay equity from these multiple sources, employers are well-advised to examine their compensation policies and practices. Understanding and applying the varying tests for pay equity under federal and state statutes can pose a challenge, however.
On January 24, McDermott hosted an in-depth webinar to discuss the federal Equal Pay Act; state equal pay laws; the EEOC’s pay data rule; how to conduct a pay equity study; and employer defenses to pay equity claims.
To view the archived presentation slides, please clickhere. To view the archived webinar, please clickhere.
Current indications are that 2017 may be a fairly static year as regards to employment law.
Whilst it is anticipated the government will trigger Article 50 to start Brexit negotiations, these are likely to last for at least two years, and existing employment laws are unlikely to feel any ripple effect from leaving the European Union for some time.
In the meantime, the Prime Minister has asked for a review, expected to take around six months, on whether current employment laws are adequate to protect the rights of the growing numbers of atypical workers. It is unlikely though that any resulting changes will come into effect in 2017.
There are, however, a number of key developments that employers will definitely need to get to grips with, or at least prepare for, in 2017.
The federal government’s focus on pay equity and pay data, and the passage of groundbreaking equal pay laws in a number of states, has been one of the biggest employment law developments of 2016. Litigation involving pay equity claims has also risen in the past year. Given the increased focus on pay equity from these multiple sources, employers are well-advised to examine their compensation policies and practices. Understanding and applying the varying tests for pay equity under federal and state statutes can pose a challenge, however.
On June 22, 2016, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued proposed regulations to modify and clarify existing regulations under Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code. The proposed changes were in response to practitioner comments and the IRS’s experience with Section 409A after the issuance of the final regulations in 2007. Overall, the proposed modifications are favorable to taxpayers and provide some planning opportunities. Plan sponsors have more flexibility to exempt arrangements from Section 409A and vary payment schedules under special circumstances. The IRS also made certain technical corrections to the existing regulations and warned taxpayers about certain practices that it considers to currently violate Section 409A. This article reviews the proposed changes, discusses available planning opportunities offered to employers, and addresses issues raised by the proposed regulations.
Subscribe
