by Joseph S. Adams, Anne S. Becker, Kary Crassweller and Stephen Pavlick, PC
New guidance issued by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) aims to help participants and beneficiaries with the “decumulation” phase of retirement planning by requiring sponsors to provide illustrations of lifetime retirement income.
To read the full article, please click here.
by Prashant Kolluri and Nancy G. Ross
Kenseth v. Dean Health Plan, Inc., represents a significant departure from the decades of law prior to Cigna v. Amara holding that employees could not recover for misrepresentations by employers over benefit coverage if the plan terms were clear.
To read the full article, click here.
July 2, 2013
11:00 am – 12:00 pm EDT
To register, click here.
As a result of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), same-sex relationships have not been recognized for any purpose under any federal law, including the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, the Internal Revenue Code and COBRA. Historically, this has created significant implications for the administration of benefit plans covering same-sex partners, including the taxation of health, dental and vision benefits and survivor benefits under retirement plans. Employers that have extended equal benefits to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender employees have faced significant administrative and other challenges. Employers that have not extended benefits to same-sex partners have struggled to understand their legal obligations.
Earlier this year, the Supreme Court of the United States heard arguments on the constitutionality of DOMA and on California’s “Proposition 8,” which denies same-sex couples the right to marry in that state. The Supreme Court is expected to issue its rulings in these cases in June. Based on this, McDermott Will & Emery invites you to a webcast to discuss the impact of these landmark decisions on employee benefit plan sponsors and to address key considerations for employer-provided plans, including:
McDermott Speakers
Joseph S. Adams, Partner
Todd A. Solomon, Partner
Brian J. Tiemann, Associate
For more information, please contact Carolyn Verscaj.
by Paul J. Compernolle, Ashley McCarthy and Maureen O’Brien
Section 4043 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) requires pension plan sponsors to report a variety of corporate and plan events to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC). In November 2009, the PBGC proposed regulations that would have eliminated most of the reporting waivers available under current law and drastically increased the reporting requirements applicable to pension plans. Plan sponsors and practitioners widely criticized the 2009 proposed regulations as overly burdensome. Citing both this feedback and a 2010 executive order directing agencies to review existing regulations to identify those that could be made less onerous, the PBGC recently issued revised proposed regulations (the Proposed Regulations) that reinstate many of the exemptions that would have been eliminated under the 2009 proposed regulations. The Proposed Regulations would also replace the current funding-based exemption scheme with an approach based on the financial soundness of pension plans and their sponsors.
by Jonathan J. Boyles, Paul J. Compernolle and David Diaz
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled that owners can be personally liable for multiemployer withdrawal liability where the owner leases property to its own closely held corporation. The decision highlights the dangers of related-party transactions, failing to observe business formalities and holding property personally.
To read the full article, click here.
by Michael T. Graham, Elizabeth A. Savard and Patrick D. Ryan
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit’s holding in Kirkendall v. Halliburton, Inc. reaffirms that a benefit plan’s claims procedures must be drafted clearly and in language to be understood by a reasonable participant. If participants are permitted to avoid a plan’s administrative claims process, there are significant impacts on a plan’s defense of a lawsuit, including application of a de novo standard of review to a benefit determination rather than the deferential arbitrary and capricious standard.
To read the full article, click here.
by Diane Morgenthaler, Maureen O’Brien and Kary Crassweller
Recently the Internal Revenue Service provided the first set of guidance on the new notice requirements for single employer defined benefit plans subject to funding-related restrictions under Section 436 of the Internal Revenue Code. This guidance includes information on notice recipients, content, delivery and timing. Because significant penalties apply to a notice failure, plan sponsors need to carefully review this new guidance.
To read the full article, click here.
by Amy M. Gordon, Susan M. Nash and Jamie A. Weyeneth
If you are an employer that sponsors a fully insured medical plan option for your employees, and you had that fully insured medical plan option in place for the 2011 calendar year, you may be eligible for a Medical Loss Ratio rebate.
To read the full article, click here.
by Mary K. Samsa, Todd A. Solomon and Joseph K. Urwitz
Recently issued U.S. Department of Labor guidance indicates limitations on the use of an exemption from the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA), for certain 403(b) Plans.
To read the full article, click here.
by John A. Litwinski and Chris C. Scheithauer
Recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that a 401(k) plan participant who sued under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) for losses in connection with a company stock fund that suffered a drop must show losses on a “net basis” during the class period to have constitutional standing. This decision has great significance in addressing plaintiffs’ standing and class certification in so-called ERISA “stock-drop” cases, often filed after a company’s stock price falls.
Subscribe
