The availability of annuity options under defined contribution plans has increased in recent years due to the shift from defined benefit to defined contribution plans. The U.S. Department of Labor recently issued new guidance that clarifies the legal responsibilities for fiduciaries who select an annuity provider for a defined contribution plan.
Generally, any type of organization can offer a defined benefit pension plan under Section 4019a) in the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code) or a Code Section 401(k) Plan. However, only employers described in Code Section 501(a) and educational organizations described in Code Section 170(b)(A)(iii) are permitted to sponsor Code Section 403(b) plans. Equally, Code Section 457 plans can only be sponsored by governmental and other organizations exempt from tax under the Code. Until roughly 2009, both Code Sections 403(b) plans and Code Section 457 plans had been basically ignored or overlooked by the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) and the Department of Labor (“DOL”). However, as these two plans have accumulated significant assets over the course of time (many occurring due to the consolidation of large plans in the healthcare sector through business combinations), the IRS and DOL have deemed it necessary to start taking a closer look. The audits of Code Section 403(b) plans and Code Section 457 plans has increased dramatically in the last few years to the point where the IRS has now issued its “top ten list” of issues which tax-exempt entities need to focus on when sponsoring these types of plans.
Read the full article from the Journal of Compensation and Benefits.
(c)2015 ThomsonReuters, reprinted with permission.
Managers of private equity funds who are responsible for investing the assets of a fund that holds plan assets are likely to be considered a fiduciary under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA). ERISA imposes numerous duties on fiduciaries, and those who fail to meet ERISA’s standards may be personally liable to restore plan losses, disgorge profits made through the use of plan assets, and pay additional statutory penalties imposed by the Department of Labor. The fiduciary may also face criminal penalties if found guilty of wilful failure. It is therefore vitally important that fiduciaries are fully aware of all their duties under ERISA.
Recent cyber-attacks on health insurers have heightened awareness that sensitive participant and beneficiary information may not be adequately secure. There will undoubtedly be other attacks on databases maintained by service providers to employee benefit plans, which raises an important question for Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) fiduciaries: what should be done now to protect participant and beneficiary information entrusted to service providers against future attacks and unauthorized disclosure? While the extent of a fiduciary’s responsibility to protect personal identifiable information of participants and beneficiaries is unclear, the fiduciary provisions of ERISA can be interpreted to impose a general duty to protect this information when it is part of a plan’s administration. In addition, plan fiduciaries also may have obligations under other federal and state laws governing data privacy and security that are not preempted by ERISA. This article addresses the nature of the problem, identifies the types of data breaches that can occur with employee benefit plans, provides an overview of relevant law that may apply, and sets forth practical steps that can be taken by plan fiduciaries with service providers to address privacy and security concerns.
Click here to read the full article from Benefits Law Journal.
On June 25, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in King v. Burwell that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) requires premium tax credits to be made available in states that use a federal exchange. The case challenged an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) regulation allowing tax credits in federal exchanges. The Supreme Court upheld the regulation as consistent with the statute. Our On the Subject provides a discussion on the issue.
Click here to read the full article.
On June 25, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States upheld one of the main pillars of the Affordable Care Act (ACA): the tax credits that allow millions of Americans to afford health care insurance on the public exchanges. In King v. Burwell, Chief Justice Roberts, writing for a 6–3 majority, held that middle- and low-income individuals who purchase health care insurance through a federally facilitated health care exchange are entitled to the same tax credits that are available to purchasers through state-run health care exchanges. The ruling puts to rest one of the remaining challenges to the general framework of the ACA. Accordingly, our On the Subject discusses how employers should continue to plan for compliance with the current and upcoming obligations required under the ACA.
In many transactions, particularly those where the buyer is a portfolio company of a private equity fund, the buyer agrees to cause its 401(k) plan to accept a transfer of assets from the seller’s 401(k) plan. The asset transfer from the seller’s plan provides the buyer’s with an asset base with which to negotiate the best possible administrative fee structure, and seamlessly transfers the retirement plan benefits of employees being retained or hired by the buyer. If the seller’s plan contains employer stock as an investment however, the buyer should be aware of fiduciary concerns that may arise under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), as amended.
“Stock-drop” litigation is a well-known phenomenon centering on plan fiduciary liability to plan participants when the value of employer stock investments in a retirement plan drops significantly. Less well-known is the fiduciary liability exposure facing new 401(k) plan sponsors and fiduciaries accepting a transfer of assets from the seller’s plan that includes former employer stock. Holding a significant block of a single security that is not company stock implicates ERISA prudence and diversification issues, and must be closely monitored.
Fiduciaries of 401(k) plans considering accepting asset transfers of former employer stock have often been advised to engage counsel to evaluate the prudence of holding the former employer stock in the buyer’s plan as an investment alternative (even if “frozen” to new investment) and establish a timeline for requiring that plan participants divest the former employer stock within one to two years of the asset transfer from the seller’s plan.
In light of the decision in Tatum v RJR Pension Inv. Comm., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 14924 (4th Cir. Aug. 4, 2014), buyer 401(k) plan sponsors and plan fiduciaries must now be even more careful to engage in a process that separates fiduciary from non-fiduciary acts and carefully follows established procedures for implementing any required divestitures of former employer stock. In Tatum, the plan was not properly amended to require the divestiture of former employer stock. This failure to properly amend the plan converted a plan design decision, which was a non-fiduciary or “settlor” decision, into a fiduciary act. In Tatum, the plan fiduciaries also failed to follow a prudent process for determining whether or not to eliminate former employer stock and for determining the timeline for implementing such divestitures.
The Tatum decision highlights that, in addition to fiduciary risk in holding former employer stock in the buyer’s 401(k) plan as an investment, there is also fiduciary risk in the process of eliminating former employer stock as an investment in the buyer’s plan.
When establishing a new 401(k) plan, the buyer should consult with legal counsel regarding the risks involved in accepting an asset transfer from a seller’s plan that includes former employer stock. Any new plan sponsors or plan fiduciaries that are contemplating accepting former employer stock as part of an asset transfer should consider whether or not they should engage an independent third party to monitor the former employer [...]
Continue Reading
On May 18, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its opinion in the Tibble v. Edison Int’l, 575 U.S. ___ (2015) case, finding that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit erred in applying the six-year statutory bar in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) to plaintiff’s claim alleging that respondents owed a continuing duty to monitor and remove imprudent investment selections. Through the decision, the Supreme Court expressly held that ERISA fiduciaries have a continuing duty to monitor plan investments and to remove imprudent investments.
As the U.S. Supreme Court weighs whether gay couples are constitutionally entitled to marry, more companies in states with marriage equality have begun to mandate that gay employees marry in order to maintain benefits, including health care coverage. In a recent interview with the Wall Street Journal, McDermott partner Todd Solomon discusses the shifting terrain of coverage and benefits that companies offer unmarried gay partners. McDermott lawyers have been monitoring domestic partnership benefits for almost two decades, and, as Mr. Solomon notes, the landscape is definitely changing.
Read the full article, “Firms Tell Gay Couples: Wed or Lose Your Benefits,” in the Wall Street Journal.
Much attention has been given to recent U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) proposed rulemaking under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd Frank Act) that would require disclosure of chief executive officer pay ratios and a new pay-for-performance table. But there’s another proposed rule that could cause significant headaches for public companies during the 2016 proxy season. As we previously reported, the SEC has proposed rules that would require disclosure of what categories of transactions are – and are not – allowed under issuer hedging policies. These rules would implement Section 955 of the Dodd-Frank Act. We believe that this issue has not received significant attention because most public companies already have hedging policies. What’s not appreciated is that the scope of the proposed rules is quite broad and could cover many common investment transactions that would not be a hedge under many public company hedging policies. For example, purchasing the stock of other issuers could be a hedge under the proposed rules. If the proposed rules are implemented in their current form, public companies could be forced to choose between (i) disclosing that some forms of hedging are allowed under their hedging policies, thereby risking adverse voting recommendations from proxy advisory services (such as ISS and Glass-Lewis, at least under current voting guidelines) or (ii) modifying existing hedging polices to limit investment approaches used to diversify concentrated stock positions, which would complicate compliance oversight of hedging policies and lead to changes by executives in their investment strategies, including potentially more sales of issuer stock under 10b5-1 programs. McDermott Will & Emery has submitted comments urging the SEC to clarify and narrow the scope of hedging transactions that would be covered as part of the final rules – click here for a copy of the comment letter. We recommend that public companies keep in mind the need to review existing hedging polices in light of what the SEC adopts as final rules on hedging policy disclosures, which could be finalized by early this fall.
Subscribe
