Retirement Plans
Subscribe to Retirement Plans's Posts

IRS Eliminates Use of Letter Forwarding Service to Find Missing Participants and Beneficiaries

by Jeffrey M. Holdvogt and Susan Peters Schaefer

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) recently discontinued its letter forwarding service for missing participants or beneficiaries entitled to a benefit under an employee retirement plan.  Until now, retirement plan sponsors have frequently used the IRS letter forwarding service as a way to locate missing participants or beneficiaries to whom benefits are owed under a retirement plan.  Following this discontinuance, plan sponsors will need to utilize another more expensive government forwarding service or utilize internet search tools, commercial locater services and credit report agencies to locate missing retirement plan participants.

To read the full article, click here.




read more

E&P and Deduction Opportunities for U.S. Companies with Foreign Pension Plans

by David G. Noren and Ruth Wimer

It has now been 30 years since the U.S. Congress enacted Section 404A to “rescue” U.S. taxpayers with global operations maintaining large foreign pension plans through branches, disregarded entities, partnerships or controlled foreign corporations.  Section 404A was intended to allow a deduction or a reduction in earnings and profits (E&P) as applicable, in a manner that would mirror what would apply had the foreign pension plan instead been a U.S.-qualified pension plan under Section 401(a).  However, without an affirmative election by the U.S. taxpayer under Section 404A, in most instances the deduction or reduction in E&P is seriously compromised.

To read the full article, click here.




read more

DOL Revises Guidance on Participant Fee Disclosures for Brokerage Window Investments

by Diane M. Morgenthaler, Elizabeth A. Savard and Maggie McTigue

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) recently issued new and welcome guidance for fiduciaries of account-based retirement plans by withdrawing its controversial guidance on fee disclosures for brokerage windows, self-directed brokerage accounts and similar arrangements (SDBAs).  For now, the DOL has reverted to its prior regulatoqury guidance that fee disclosures with respect to particular investment options that participants select through an SDBA are not required, unless the SDBA option is specifically identified as available under the retirement plan.  This new guidance removes the burden of monitoring the number of participants invested in a particular option through the SDBA and of making fee disclosures with respect to certain SDBA options.

Background

As described in our June 12, 2012, newsletter, the DOL issued Field Assistance Bulletin (FAB) 2012-02 on May 7, 2012, to provide additional guidance on the participant fee disclosure requirements for defined contribution plans with participant-directed investments.  Historically plan fiduciaries have taken the position that they are not responsible for monitoring the particular investment options participants select though an SDBA.  However, in Q&A-30 of FAB 2012-02, the DOL indicated that plan fiduciaries may need to make participant fee disclosures with respect to an investment option that is only available through the SDBA if a significant number of participants elected to invest in that option.  This position surprised many plan administrators because it was inconsistent with prevailing interpretations of prior DOL guidance.  In addition, the DOL was criticized for issuing their position in an FAB rather than through a rulemaking process that would have given interested parties notice and an opportunity to comment.

New Guidance

In response to requests from benefits industry groups and other interested parties, the DOL issued FAB 2012-02R, which withdraws the prior Q&A-30 and replaces it with a new Q&A-39.  Under Q&A-39, an investment option is a designated investment alternative for purposes of the participant fee disclosure rules only if it has been specifically identified as available under the plan.  Thus, fee disclosures generally will not be required for investment options that participants select through an SDBA.

Q&A-39 is welcome guidance for fiduciaries of plans with SDBAs, as it removes the burden of monitoring the number of participants invested in a particular option through the SDBA and of making fee disclosures with respect to certain SDBA options.  Fiduciaries are still bound by the general ERISA fiduciary duties of prudence and loyalty to participants who use SDBAs, including taking into account the nature and quality of services provided in connection with the SDBA.  The DOL also noted that while plans are not required to have a particular number of designated investment alternatives, the failure to designate any investment alternatives (for example, to avoid fee disclosure obligations) would raise questions under the general fiduciary duties of prudence and loyalty.




read more

Key Employee Benefit Considerations for Private Equity Acquisitions

by Maureen O’Brien

Legal review of employee benefit plan issues represents a key opportunity for private equity funds to protect and enhance the value of their investments.  Below are some important considerations to bear in mind when structuring and negotiating transactions.

Potential Areas of Non-Compliance

Dealing with historical benefit plan non-compliance can be costly and distracting to a new management team.  An effective review of a target company’s employee benefit plans can foster a successful execution of a fund’s business plan by reducing ongoing risks, saving costs, helping to ensure a smooth transition for employees, and better positioning portfolio companies for future add-on acquisitions and the private equity fund’s eventual exit.

Potential Areas of Joint and Several Liability

Certain employee benefit plans carry unfunded liabilities that are joint and several liabilities of the sponsoring employee or participating employer and each member of that employer’s “controlled group.”  The controlled group generally consists of all entities, whether or not incorporated, that are connected through common ownership of 80 percent or more by vote or value.  Under some theories, the entire private equity fund and its portfolio companies may be deemed to be part of the controlled group and thus jointly and severally liable for such liabilities.

Single-Employer Plans
Single-employer defined benefit pension plans often carry significant unfunded termination liabilities that can adversely affect the plan sponsor’s balance sheet.  Private equity funds should be cautious of rules that impose joint and several liabilities for unfunded termination liabilities and annual minimum funding contributions among members of the controlled group.

Multi-Employer Plans
A private equity fund acquiring a direct or indirect interest in 80 percent or more of the target may be liable for any withdrawal liability or missed contributions.  Many U.S. multi-employer defined benefit pension plans assess significant liabilities against employers that cease participation in such plans (referred to as “withdrawal liability”).  A key consideration for multi-employer plans is identifying and managing potential (and often significant) withdrawal liabilities in due diligence.  In addition, multi-employer defined benefit pension plan liabilities can be deemed to be joint and several liabilities of the entire controlled group.  Further, in an asset transaction, withdrawal liability is automatically triggered and assessed on the seller and its controlled group.  Private equity buyers should be aware that sellers sometimes may seek to shift such burdens to the buyer in the purchase agreement.

Positioning for the Future – Structuring the Post-Acquisition Entity 

The definitive purchase agreement should contain provisions to manage the benefit plan obligations of the private equity fund and its target.  After closing, acquisition targets typically must establish and administer new employee benefit plans.  This is particularly relevant in carve-out scenarios where the target had been participating in the employee benefit plans of a much larger parent company.  Proper documentation and corporate governance is key to ensuring compliance with relevant rules and regulations.  In particular, sellers often seek to require that buyers replicate current employee benefit plans at the seller.  However, a replication of such plans may [...]

Continue Reading




read more

Participant Fee Disclosure: Top 10 List of Issues to Consider

by Nancy S. Gerrie, Natalie M. Nathanson, Todd A. Solomon and Lisa K. Loesel

The new 401(k) participant fee disclosure rules issued by the U.S. Department of Labor require plan administrators with calendar year plans to send disclosures to plan participants by August 30, 2012.  The top 10 things to consider in complying with the new rules are described in this publication in Q&A format.

To read the full article, click here




read more

Puerto Rico Retirement Plans: Issues Employers Should Think About in 2012

by Nancy S. Gerrie, Jeffrey M. Holdvogt and Brian J. Tiemann

Puerto Rico and U.S. laws affecting retirement plans have changed extensively in the last few years.  Puerto Rico adopted a new tax code in 2011, and both the U.S. and Puerto Rico Treasury Departments issued a number of rulings that have a significant impact on employers that sponsor retirement plans benefiting Puerto Rico employees.  Action is required on many of these changes by the end of 2012 or early 2013.

Read the full article here.




read more

Sixth Circuit Requires a Net Loss to Sue in Certain ERISA Stock-Drop Cases

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.

Read the full article here.




read more

New DOL Guidance Amplifies Participant Fee Disclosure Rules

by Elizabeth A. Savard, Karen A. Simonsen and Lisa K. Loesel

For most defined contribution plans, initial annual fee disclosures are due to participants by August 30, 2012. In order to facilitate compliance with the new fee disclosure rules, the U.S. Department of Labor recently issued Field Assistance Bulletin 2012-02, which provides helpful commentary on 38 common disclosure questions, including disclosure of administrative expenses and brokerage window fees.

To read the full article, please visit:  https://www.mwe.com/New-DOL-Guidance-Amplifies-Participant-Fee-Disclosure-Rules-06-12-2012/.




read more

New Guidance From the Department of Labor Clarifies Participant Disclosure Requirements

by Maureen O’Brien and Karen Simonsen.

In October 2010, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) issued final regulations requiring plan administrators to disclose certain plan and investment-related information, including fee and expense information, to participants and beneficiaries in 401(k) plans and other participant-directed individual account plans.  In February 2012, the DOL issued final regulations under section 408(b)(2) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) requiring certain covered service providers to furnish specified information to plan administrators so that they may comply with their disclosure obligations in the participant-level disclosure regulations. On May 7, 2012, the DOL published additional guidance addressing frequently asked questions concerning the participant disclosure regulations and the service provider disclosure regulations.

The new guidance consists of 38 questions and answers addressing, among other topics, revenue sharing disclosures, brokerage window disclosures, designated investment alternatives, transition rules, and form and content of investment-related information.  Plan administrators should review the new guidance now to determine if any changes to participant disclosures are required prior to the initial/annual disclosure deadline of August 30, 2012.

A detailed analysis of the new guidance from McDermott is forthcoming in the near future.  For now, click here to link to the new guidance.  To listen to McDermott’s webinar on participant fee disclosure and service provider disclosures, click here.




read more

BLOG EDITORS

STAY CONNECTED

TOPICS

ARCHIVES

Top ranked chambers 2022
US leading firm 2022