Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 Archives - Page 6 of 13

View From McDermott: Is Tibble the End of Revenue Sharing?

by Lisa Loesel and Mary K. Samsa | Mar 30, 2016 | Fiduciary and Investment Issues, Retirement Plans

Ten short years ago, revenue sharing seemingly presented a “win win” opportunity for third-party administrators (TPAs) and defined contribution plan sponsors. TPAs generally retained all revenue sharing payments received from plans’ investment fund companies in exchange for administrative services provided to the investment funds. In recognition of the revenue sharing received from the investment fund companies, TPAs often provided “free” plan administrative services to plan sponsors. Starting in the mid-2000s, however, more plan sponsors began to question the amount of money received by the TPAs under this arrangement, and plaintiffs’ lawyers and the DOL began to monitor and scrutinize revenue sharing.

This article summarizes the evolution of revenue sharing over the past ten years and examines its future through the lens of the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Tibble v. Edison and the subsequent uptick in 401(k) fee litigation.

Read the full article.

Supreme Court Emphasizes Heightened Pleading Standard for Stock Drop Cases

by McDermott Will & Emery | Mar 4, 2016 | Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs), Fiduciary and Investment Issues, Health and Welfare Plans

On January 25, 2016, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a per curiam opinion in Amgen Inc. v. Harris, holding that the Amgen, Inc. employees who filed suit after the value of the employer stock in which they had invested dramatically decreased, failed to sufficiently plead a breach of fiduciary duty claim under ERISA in light of the Court’s decision last term in Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer.

Read the full article.

Supreme Court Issues Further Clarification on Equitable Relief Remedies Available Under ERISA

by McDermott Will & Emery | Jan 28, 2016 | Health and Welfare Plans, Retirement Plans

The Supreme Court of the United States’ recent ruling in Montanile v. Board of Trustees of the National Elevator Industry Health Benefit Plan holds that an ERISA plan cannot enforce an equitable lien against a participant’s general assets when the full amount of the settlement is spent on non-traceable items. This decision should encourage plan fiduciaries to take action on reimbursement and subrogation rights more quickly after learning of a third-party recovery, in order to preserve their right to assert an equitable remedy against an identifiable, traceable fund.

Read the full article.

Seventh Circuit Finds that State Insurance Law Applies, Resulting in De Novo Review of Benefit Claim

by Jacob Mattinson, Michael T. Graham and Todd Solomon | Sep 24, 2015 | Benefit Controversies, Employee Benefits, Employment, Retirement Plans

On September 4, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled in Fontaine v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA), does not preempt an Illinois state insurance regulation that prohibits discretionary authority clauses in health and disability plan insurance policies. The Seventh Circuit upheld the ruling of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, which decided that the Illinois regulation was not subject to preemption under precedent set forth in prior decisions by the Supreme Court of the United States.

Read the full article.

View From McDermott: Judicial Dos and Don’ts of ERISA Benefit Claim

by McDermott Will & Emery | Sep 16, 2015 | Benefit Controversies, Retirement Plans

Much has been written about the challenges that exist for the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) plan fiduciaries related to their investment of plan assets or review of plan administration fees related to those investments, and those challenges will continue for the foreseeable future given recent decisions of the Supreme Court in Dudenhoeffer and Tibble. However, before any litigation typically commences under ERISA, a claimant must exhaust their administrative claims review remedies under ERISA and the applicable benefit plan. In reviewing benefit claims, an ERISA plan administrator or their delegate must reasonably and timely jump through many hoops to decide benefit claims and notify the claimant of a benefit determination. If a plan administrator fails to clear any of these hoops (or just forgets to jump through them), the plan and the plan administrator can incur liabilities or waive defenses typically available in defending the claims in litigation.

This article, which was originally published by Bloomberg BNA’s Pension Benefits Daily, analyzes court cases that discuss how plan administrators should properly decide and administer ERISA benefit claims and what liability should attach to poor claims administration. Based on this case review, this article then suggests best practices to avoid mishandling the ERISA claims review process.

Read the full article.

Privacy and Security Concerns for Employee Benefit Plans with Service Provider Relationships

by Anthony A. Bongiorno, Andrew Liazos and Amy C. Pimentel | Jul 21, 2015 | Benefit Controversies, Employment, Fiduciary and Investment Issues, Health and Welfare Plans, Labor, Privacy and Data Security, Retirement Plans

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.

Fiduciary Risks Involved in Transferring Assets from a Seller’s 401(k) Plan to the Buyer’s Plan

by McDermott Will & Emery | Jun 2, 2015 | Benefit Controversies, Fiduciary and Investment Issues, Health and Welfare Plans, Retirement Plans

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

View From McDermott: 2014 ERISA Litigation Review–Decisions From the Supreme Court and Beyond

by Michael T. Graham | Apr 7, 2015 | Retirement Plans

Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a number of significant ERISA cases. In its 2013-14 term, the Supreme Court decided two ERISA-based appeals – Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer and Heimeshoff v. Hartford Life & Acc. Ins. Co. In the current 2014-15 term, the Supreme Court already issued one ERISA decision in M&G Polymers USA, LLC v. Tackett, and will issue another ERISA decision soon in Tibble v. Edison Int’l. Although these four cases have received much attention within the ERISA community, each year there are hundreds of other decisions issued by federal appellate and district courts that also impact a plan sponsor’s daily administration of welfare and retirement plans. In fact, many of these district court and appellate decisions are interpreting issues raised or addressed in these Supreme Court opinions. This article will address a few of these cases, which may not have received a lot of attention by the press, but could have long-lasting impacts on plan administration and litigation in future years.

Read the full article.

Sixth Circuit Rejects Claim that Disgorgement of Profits Is Appropriate Remedy in ERISA Benefit Denial Action

by Michael T. Graham and Patrick Ryan | Mar 31, 2015 | Benefit Controversies, Retirement Plans

On March 5, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed the finding of a prior Sixth Circuit panel that allowed successful plaintiffs to recover additional equitable relief in the form of disgorgement of profits under a return-on-equity analysis in addition to the recovery of the denied benefits. This decision realigns the Sixth Circuit with the other circuits by requiring that plaintiffs prove a separate injury in order to receive additional equitable relief under ERISA.

Read the full article.

SEC No-Action Letter Permits Non-ERISA Retirement Plans to Issue Participant Fee Disclosures Without Violating Securities Laws

by McDermott Will & Emery, Brian Tiemann and Todd Solomon | Mar 26, 2015 | Retirement Plans

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued a no-action letter on February 18, 2015, that extends relief from SEC Rule 482 to sponsors of certain retirement plans exempt from ERISA. The relief permits sponsors of non-ERISA plans to follow final U.S. Department of Labor regulations for participant-level fee disclosures, provided the sponsor complies with several conditions set forth by the SEC.

Read the full article.

BLOG EDITORS

STAY CONNECTED

TOPICS

ARCHIVES

RECENT POSTS