The US Department of Labor increased the penalties for specified violations of the Employee Income Retirement Security Act of 1974. Most of the penalty increases involve reporting and disclosure failures related to benefit plans and will be effective for penalties assessed after August 1, 2016, if the violation occurred after November 1, 2015.
On December 2, 2016, the Supreme Court of the United States granted the petitions for writs of certiorari to Advocate Health Care, et al. v. Stapleton, Maria, et al., St. Peter’s Healthcare, et al. v. Kaplan, Laurence and Dignity Health, et al. v. Rollins, Starla, all of which previously requested the Court review their arguments on whether the church plan exemption available under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA), applies so long as a tax-qualified retirement plan is maintained by an otherwise qualifying church-affiliated organization, or whether the exemption applies only if, in addition, a church initially established the tax-qualified retirement plan. The three cases are being consolidated and will receive one hour total for oral argument.
“Top hat plans” have many attractive features, but a new court decision is a reminder that top hat plan participants have limited protections under ERISA – and that assets held in a rabbi trust are not protected from the claims of creditors upon the employer’s bankruptcy or insolvency.
Our client, State Street Bank and Trust Company, served as the trustee of a top hat plan providing special retirement benefits for active and retired senior executives at Chrysler Automotive. When Chrysler was facing bankruptcy in 2008, $200 million in funds from the rabbi trust were used for company operations. Some 400 retired executives (including former chairman Lee Iacocca) were left with nothing in their accounts. After getting no relief in the Chrysler reorganization proceedings, the retirees filed a complaint against State Street and Chrysler’s parent company Daimler A.G. After considerable skirmishing in state and federal court, a federal judge ruled that the plaintiffs could not pursue state law claims of fraud and breach of trust about an ERISA benefits plan (because those claims were preempted by ERISA) – and that any breach of fiduciary duty claims under ERISA would be futile as the top hat plan did not protect retiree accounts in a bankruptcy. Those rulings were affirmed by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Back in district court, the plaintiffs filed expanded ERISA claims about the rabbi trust and a new age discrimination claim, all of which were dismissed. In a second appeal, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled (again) that plaintiffs have no viable ERISA claims because the plan and trust operated as described in plan documents and ruled that the age discrimination claims were filed too late. In short, all of the claims have been defeated on pleading and procedural grounds without a trial on what happened during the Chrysler collapse.
This is the latest in a string of court victories for our trustee clients in class actions filed in Detroit and New York about auto industry benefit plans that were wiped out in the 2008 financial crisis, including those at Delphi Automotive, General Motors and now Chrysler litigation partner Bill Boies led the defense and argued for State Street on appeal; associate Jen Aronoff wrote much of the appeal brief. Employee Benefits partner Andrew Liazos provided insights and arguments about the top hat plan and rabbi trust.
A 401(k) plan has a qualified cash or deferred arrangement that is part of a profit sharing plan or stock bonus plan. Under the Internal Revenue Code Section 401(k)(2), an employee may elect to make contributions to the plan, the covered employee’s contributions are not distributable before severance from employment, disability, death, attainment of age 59 ½, financial hardship, or termination of the plan, and under which the covered employee’s contributions are nonforfeitable.
This presentation will address the following objectives:
As employers have moved away from traditional defined benefit plans toward defined contribution plans as the primary retirement savings vehicle for their employees, much has been written about the risks of shifting the retirement savings burden from the employer to the employee. One widely-recognized consequence of this shift in retirement savings methods is that many employees are not contributing enough of their income, or earning high enough returns on their investments, to provide sufficient funds to meet their retirement needs through defined contribution plans. Many plan sponsors have responded to this concern by adding features to their defined contribution plans, such as automatic enrollment, automatic annual increases of employee deferral percentages and increased matching contributions, in order to encourage employees to save more for retirement.
Another consequence of this shift to defined contribution plans that has received less attention is that employees who suffer long-term disability are left without the retirement safety net that often has been provided under defined benefit plans. Employees typically lose the ability to continue making contributions to a defined contribution plan upon becoming disabled and often rely on their retirement savings under a defined contribution plan to meet their current income needs. While the Internal Revenue Code (the Code) and the regulations thereunder provide a framework for incorporating long-term disability benefits into defined contribution plans, these benefits have yet to become widely adopted by plan sponsors, perhaps partially due to inconsistent guidance from the Internal Revenue Service (the IRS) and uncertainly on the part of plan sponsors regarding how such benefits can be implemented in practice. However, as employers continue to limit, and in some cases terminate, defined benefit plans, it will become more pressing to turn these theoretical frameworks into workable solutions to provide an important benefit for disabled employees.
Read the full article here.
The Internal Revenue Service recently issued Revenue Procedure 2016-51, a new version of the Employee Plans Compliance Resolution System (EPCRS) to consolidate and update its prior guidance regarding how to correct of errors in qualified retirement plans. The new version of the EPCRS program also reflects changes that the IRS has made to its determination letter process.
Read the full article here.
The Internal Revenue Service recently announced the cost-of-living adjustments to the applicable dollar limits for various employer-sponsored retirement and welfare plans for 2017. Although some of the dollar limits currently in effect for 2016 will change, the majority of the limits will remain unchanged for 2017.
Read the full article here.
On Monday, October 24, Chicago partners Todd Solomon and Brian Tiemann will speak at the Association of Financial Professionals conference in Orlando, Florida. Joined by Kendall Frederick, Senior Manager of Finance Integration at Hanesbrands Inc., the panel will discuss how to use financial planning and analysis analytics to help plan fiduciaries assess the need and potential effectiveness of plan design changes for 401(k) plans, including automatic enrollment and reenrollment strategies. The panel will discuss the analytics considered by Hanesbrands prior to its recent participant reenrollment and introduction of white label funds under its 401(k) plan as a case study.
Conference attendees can join the speakers for this discussion on Monday, October 24 at 8:30 a.m. Eastern in Room W307CD at the Orange County Convention Center, located at 9400 Universal Blvd, Orlando, FL 32819. More information is available here.
At the 2016 Joint Fall CLE Meeting on October 1, 2016, Andrew Liazos presented on “Maintaining Retirement Plan Documents after Revenue Procedure 2016-37.”
As an employer sponsoring a retirement plan, you are required by law to keep your books and records available for review by the IRS. Having these records will also facilitate answering questions when determining participants’ benefits. As a plan sponsor you should keep the plan and trust document, recent amendments, determination and approval letters, related annuity contracts and collective bargaining agreements.
The presentation highlights key changes under Revenue Procedure 2016-37 and the consequential impacts on annual audits, plan drafting, choice of plan, existing plan administration, EPCRS and other various transactions.
View presentation slides.
The Department of Treasury and Internal Revenue Service issued final regulations addressing the minimum present value requirements for pension benefits payable partly as an annuity and partly in an accelerated form, usually a lump sum. With these regulations, Treasury and IRS take another step in promoting lifetime income alternatives for retirement plan participants with simplified calculations for partial annuity payments.
Subscribe
