Near the end of 2016, the Department of Treasury (Treasury) and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) published two significant sets of proposed regulations on issues pertaining to defined benefit pension plans, including mortality table updates that likely would increase pension funding liabilities for many plan sponsors.
On Monday March 6, 2017, the House Republican leadership in the Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means Committees unveiled their signature bill to “repeal and replace” the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The “American Health Care Act” (AHCA) is an effort to make good on President Trump’s promise to dismantle the ACA. Democrats are united in their opposition to the AHCA and other stakeholders have also come out against the bill – while the proposed legislation is subject to modification as it is marked up in committee and debated in Congress, certain provisions of the AHCA, if enacted, will be of particular importance to employers and provide the framework for a strategic road map as employers plan and design future health care benefits for their employees.
Sun Capital Partners III, LP v. New England Teamsters and Trucking Industry Pension Fund has been analyzed extensively over the past four years, as it has made its way from the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts to the First Circuit Court of Appeals and back again. With the case once again on appeal, we must wait to see how the latest court decision will further influence the structure of private equity deals. In the meantime, private equity funds should use the most recent District Court and First Circuit Sun Capital decisions as a road map for structuring deals where the target portfolio company has defined benefit pension plan or multiemployer pension plan liabilities.
There are numerous reasons why organizations exempt from taxation under Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c) (3), as amended (the “Code” and, such organizations, “Tax-Exempt Entities”) may offer severance payments to employees who incur involuntary terminations of employment. For example, severance that is conditioned on the departing employee’s execution of a release of claims in favor of the Tax-Exempt Entity can reduce the likelihood of costly and burdensome litigation. Similarly, payment of severance may reduce the risk of negative publicity for the Tax-Exempt Entity by diminishing resentment felt by departing employees. Severance may also help retain existing employees by providing them with a measure of economic security that can dissuade them from seeking alternative employment, particularly if they suspect that the Tax-Exempt Entity has encountered budgetary shortfalls and may be implementing near-term workforce reductions. For these and other reasons, many Tax-Exempt Entities have either implemented or are considering implementing severance programs. Tax-Exempt Entities should be aware of unique opportunities and recent IRS regulations that impact the design of severance programs. This article discusses key decisions and planning opportunities for Tax-Exempt Entities to consider when designing and implementing severance plans and individual severance arrangements. Tax-Exempt Entities face a number of legal and regulatory challenges in establishing severance arrangements, particularly with respect to executive-level severance, as discussed in more detail in Part I. Part II discusses the legal parameters around using Code Section 403(b) retirement savings plans to offer severance to employees with lower levels of compensation.
The future of the fiduciary rule—originally set to be implemented this upcoming April—remains uncertain after the White House directed the United States Department of Labor (DOL) to reevaluate, defer implementation and consider rescinding the controversial new fiduciary rule on February 3, 2017. In response to the White House, the acting US Secretary of Labor announced that the DOL will now consider its legal options to delay the applicability date to comply with the President’s directive. McDermott’s ERISA practice will closely monitor these developments and provide additional guidance as it becomes available.
In the presentation “ACA Repeal/Replace Under the Trump Administration,” Susan Nash discusses the implications of President Trump and the GOP’s immediate vow to “repeal and replace” the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which was enacted in 2010 by the Obama Administration to reform the health care system in the US. A complete repeal is unlikely since many ACA changes will require a filibuster proof majority vote in the Senate. However, some changes can be made unilaterally through Executive action by Republicans through Budget Reconciliation, a special legislative process created by Congress to allow for expedited voting on bills that directly impact reviews and expenditures.
The presentation also highlights several proposals that the GOP has been working on to replace ACA, the non-enforcement of market reform requirements, the possible outcomes for the Trump Executive Order and the immediate ramifications for the insurance markets and millions of Americans.
The future of the fiduciary rule—originally set to be implemented this upcoming April—remains uncertain after the White House directed the United States Department of Labor (DOL) to reevaluate, defer implementation and consider rescinding the controversial new fiduciary rule on February 3, 2017. In response to the White House, the acting US Secretary of Labor announced that the DOL will now consider its legal options to delay the applicability date to comply with the President’s directive. McDermott’s ERISA practice will closely monitor these developments and provide additional guidance as it becomes available.
The federal government’s focus on pay equity and pay data, and the passage of groundbreaking equal pay laws in a number of states, has been one of the biggest employment law developments of 2016. Litigation involving pay equity claims has also risen in the past year. Given the increased focus on pay equity from these multiple sources, employers are well-advised to examine their compensation policies and practices. Understanding and applying the varying tests for pay equity under federal and state statutes can pose a challenge, however.
On January 24, McDermott hosted an in-depth webinar to discuss the federal Equal Pay Act; state equal pay laws; the EEOC’s pay data rule; how to conduct a pay equity study; and employer defenses to pay equity claims.
To view the archived presentation slides, please click here.
To view the archived webinar, please click here.
Health system employers should make sure they are familiar with three key employee benefit issues: (1) the new Department of Labor (DOL) fiduciary rule that currently becomes effective April 10, 2017 (but may be delayed in the near future under the new administration); (2) recent excessive fee litigation filed against universities (and now health care systems such as Essentia Health) maintaining Code Section 403(b) fee plans; and (3) new Code Section 457(f) regulations. Each of these issues present risks and opportunities for health systems in 2017.
Subscribe
