On October 23, 2015, the U.S. Departments of Labor (DOL), Health and Human Services (HHS) and Treasury issued frequently asked questions (FAQs) on the implementation of preventive care and wellness provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and mental health parity disclosure, adding to the existing list of 28 previous editions of FAQs on the implementation of ACA.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) issued proposed regulations on April 14, 2015 that would expand the types of investment advice covered by fiduciary protections under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA) and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the Code). The proposed regulations would require advisers to ERISA-governed retirement plans and individual retirement accounts (IRA) to act as ‘‘fiduciaries’’ within the meaning of ERISA and the Code, subject to certain carve-outs identified by the DOL for nonfiduciary adviser services. Advisers that become fiduciaries under the proposed regulations would be subject to ERISA fiduciary duties and prohibited from engaging in certain non-exempt transactions. The proposed regulations are accompanied by two new class prohibited transaction exemptions and amendments to several existing class exemptions, which recognize the expanded scope of ERISA’s fiduciary protections under the proposed regulations while allowing advisers to continue certain types of transactions and existing fee arrangements that would otherwise be prohibited for ERISA fiduciaries. While the proposed regulations likely would have the greatest impact on the IRA marketplace, advisers to plan sponsors, and therefore plan sponsors themselves, are likely to be impacted. Comments on the proposed regulations are due by July 21, 2015.
The Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) of the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) recently released “Assessing the Quality of Employee Benefit Plan Audits,” a comprehensive report reviewing the quality of audit work performed by independent qualified public accountants with respect to financial statement audits of employee benefit plans covered by the Employee Retirement Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). EBSA finds, among other things, that nearly four out of 10 (39 percent) employee benefit plan audits completed by independent qualified public accountants for the 2011 filing year contained “major deficiencies with respect to one or more relevant GAAS requirements” which “would lead to rejection of a Form 5500 filing.” Common audit deficiencies include insufficient review of plan documents and administration, failure to obtain evidence of required communications to participants, inadequate review of employee eligibility, participant accruals and non-discrimination testing, and failure to obtain evidence of adequate internal controls.
EBSA’s findings are significant for plan sponsors and fiduciaries, because they illustrate the importance of continually monitoring employee benefit plans for compliance with the requirements of ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code. It can be easy for plan sponsors and fiduciaries to assume that once the independent audit is complete they can rest assured that the plan complies with legal requirements. However, as EBSA shows, completion of an independent audit does not guarantee compliance. Moreover, an independent audit is not enough—plan sponsors have a fiduciary obligation to ensure their plans are properly maintained and administered beyond what is required to complete the annual audit.
We recently published an article on the “Top IRS and DOL Audit Issues for Retirement Plans.” As we discuss in the article, both the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and DOL are increasingly focused on the internal controls that plan sponsors and fiduciaries maintain to show that their benefit plans are in compliance when they audit employee benefit plans. The article describes numerous steps plan sponsors should take to review their plans to avoid problems that come up on IRS and DOL audits, as well as to make sure they have proper internal controls. Regular review of these issues and proper focus on internal controls can help prevent costly fines and fees when the IRS or DOL does audit a plan.
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.
Subscribe
