By Porter Wright on Settlement agreements are fairly common in the ERISA / employee benefits area. We typically do not need “unique” provisions for these agreements, beyond making sure all the proper parties are named and that ERISA is referenced. But two issues typically require extra attention: confidentiality provisions, and payment method (including tax withholding and reporting). As discussed in our sister blog, a party might quietly violate a confidentiality provision, and get away with it without causing any real harm.… Continue Reading
By Porter Wright on In light of health care reform, we anticipate ERISA preemption cases to start popping up more frequently. Two recent decisions demonstrate that ERISA preemption is complicated, except when it isn’t. In Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Donegal, Second Circuit Judge Dennis Jacobs explains the complicated nature of ERISA preemption. This opinion may be helpful for anyone to develop a better understanding of the topic and its history. … Continue Reading
By Porter Wright on I am not a fan of binding arbitration in the context of ERISA plans, and a new Sixth Circuit decision, Schafer v. Multiband Corp., demonstrates why.
Two individuals (Schafer and Block) founded a company. As part of a series of corporate transactions, two employee stock ownership plans (“ESOPs”) were formed. Schafer and Block were appointed as trustees of the ESOPs, and entered into indemnification agreements with mandatory arbitration clauses. While the DOL was investigating its suspicion that the ESOPs had purchased stock at inflated prices, and with knowledge of this, Multiband entered into a purchase agreement to buy the holding company. As part of the transaction, Multiband entered into indemnification agreements that contained essentially the same provisions as the prior agreements.… Continue Reading
By Porter Wright on Frommert v. Conkright, the Xerox “actuarial heresy” floor-offset plan case is back. This time, the Second Circuit has ruled that the new interpretation of the plan is unreasonable, and that ERISA’s “notice provisions” were violated.
Stating, “SPDs are central to ERISA,” the Court concluded that the SPD (summary plan description) did not satisfy 29 C.F.R. § 2520.102-3(l) because the SPD did not describe the offset provision in question in more detail. The Court held, “the Plan and its related SPDs violate ERISA’s notice provisions” and “Plaintiffs’ notice claims fall under Section 502(a)(3).” … Continue Reading
By Porter Wright on When you think about it, balance is really important. It is hard to imagine how we all stand steady on a planet that is rotating on its access and rotating around the sun. The last earthquake I experienced left me queasy afterward, and that is how I feel after reading a new decision. Curses (or thank you?) to Brian Hall, editor of our sister blog, employerlawreport.com, for forwarding.
Within days of writing the Dudenhoeffer v. Fifth Third Bank blog about a threat to ERISA’s delicate balance and importance of boundaries, we have yet another Sixth Circuit decision that blazes past boundaries and throws that delicate balance into a tailspin. The Sixth Circuit has, in the words of dissenting Judge McKeague, “taken an unprecedented and extraordinary step to expand the scope of ERISA coverage.”… Continue Reading
By Greg Daugherty on We have blogged in the past about how important it is for ERISA fiduciaries to monitor the fees and compensation that their plans’ service providers receive for their services. Recently, the Department of Labor (“DOL”) issued guidance about revenue sharing payments in Advisory Opinion 2013-03A (the “Opinion”). The Opinion first answers a narrow question about potential issues for financial service providers. It then spends considerable time warning fiduciaries to be careful about how they negotiate with service providers over the use of revenue sharing payments. … Continue Reading
By Porter Wright on The Department of Labor (“DOL”) has sued an insurance brokerage firm, and its owner, for allegedly breaching fiduciary duties associated with purchasing an annuity contract for a terminating defined benefit plan. The complaint alleges that in 2003, the firm entered into an agreement to function as an ERISA fiduciary with respect to the purchase, for a … Continue Reading
By Porter Wright on Now that the excitement (or was that dread?) surrounding the Supreme Court’s ruling upholding the constitutionality of the health care reform legislation has dissipated somewhat, it seems timely to talk a little about pensions. At long last, and after several stalled efforts, meaningful pension funding stabilization legislation was enacted this summer. Congress passed and President … Continue Reading
By Porter Wright on The quickly approaching deadline for written fee disclosures by covered service providers creates new homework for plan sponsors–in the form of enhanced fiduciary review obligations and a suggested need to review (and/or create) written service agreements. By now folks who work in the tax-qualified retirement industry are well (and perhaps painfully) aware that the United … Continue Reading
By Porter Wright on A recent case, Tussey v. ABB, Inc., has received much warranted and unwarranted attention in the Section 401(k) plan arena. In Part 1 of this legal update, we will explain the basics of what happened in this case. In Part 2, we will provide practical aspects of Tussey and deliver specific recommendations on how plan sponsors and fiduciaries can help minimize their potential fiduciary liability.… Continue Reading
By Porter Wright on Multi-employer plans have been catching my eye lately. These plans, sometimes called “Taft-Hartley plans,” are maintained pursuant to collective bargaining agreements between unions and various employers. In Shelter Distribution, Inc. v. General Drivers, Warehousemen & Helpers Local Union No. 89, the collective bargaining agreement provided that the union would indemnify the company for any contingent … Continue Reading
By Porter Wright on The Sixth Circuit has reversed the district court's dismissal of the GM ERISA stock-drop suit, Pfeil v. State Street Bank & Trust Co., and is allowing the case to proceed. You may recall that we cautioned fiduciaries of ESOPs and 401(k) plans allowing investment in employer stock to keep an eye on this case because it could be a game-changer. And now it is.… Continue Reading
By Porter Wright on A recent Sixth Circuit decision provides a tutorial on designing and administering an ERISA executive compensation top-hat plan. In Daft v. Advest, Inc., a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed the District Court’s decision that the executive compensation plan was an ERISA plan but was not a top-hat plan, on the grounds … Continue Reading
By Porter Wright on It was great to see everyone who was able to attend our Employment Relations seminar in Columbus yesterday—”Strategies to Help You Build a Winning Team.” We thought we would share one of the questions that was asked: is it necessary to seek requests for proposal (“RFPs”) for a 401(k) plan on a certain schedule? This … Continue Reading
By Porter Wright on I would like to direct our readers to a recent post by my partner - Bill McGrath on our sister blog - Federal Securities Law Blog titled "Ohio Federal Judge Allows Say-on-Pay Lawsuit to Proceed." … Continue Reading
By Porter Wright on The United States Department of Labor (the "DOL") last week withdrew a proposed regulation that would have expanded the definition of "fiduciary" under ERISA in the context of retirement plans. (See our recent post that announced that withdrawal.) The regulation project was based on a belief that the old regulations defining the term, which originally were issued in 1975, were inadequate in today's marketplace (a contention that seemingly drew little opposition in the abstract). … Continue Reading
By Porter Wright on The Department of Labor's Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) has put the brakes on its proposed rule on the definition of a fiduciary, which was slated to become final in the near future. EBSA's goal for the regulatory change was to ensure that potential conflicts of interest among financial advisors would not compromise the quality of investment advice to individuals.… Continue Reading
By Porter Wright on This time of year, many employers are struggling to satisfy the independent auditors of their employee benefit plans so that they can obtain opinions and file their Forms 5500 on time. For a calendar year plan that filed a Form 5558 extension, the deadline is generally October 15 (but is October 17 this year, given that the 15th is a Saturday). As the deadline nears, employers may also encounter problems with electronic filing (now in its second year) and with getting answers to their questions regarding the filing. The potential penalties for failure to timely file a Form 5500 are substantial. … Continue Reading
