Retirement Plans Archives | Page 41 of 71

Retirement Plans

Employee Benefits & Compensation: What You Should Do Before Year End

by McDermott Will & Emery | Nov 7, 2011 | Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs), Employment, Executive Compensation, Fiduciary and Investment Issues, Health and Welfare Plans, Labor, Retirement Plans

Friday, November 18, 2011
10:00 – 11:00 am CST

As the year draws to a close, please join us for a focused and concise update on the most important employee benefit issues.

Mark your calendars
McDermott Will & Emery will present a 60-minute complimentary webcast, hosted by the leaders of our employee benefits and compensation practice, that will highlight key year-end considerations for:

Health and welfare benefits
Qualified and non-qualified retirement plan
Plan fiduciary and investment management
Executive compensation
Fringe benefits
Domestic partner benefits

Who should attend
All vice presidents of human resources, in-house counsel, compensation and benefits directors, chief financial officers and others responsible for overseeing corporate or executive benefits and/or retirement plans.

To register, please click here.

For more information, please contact McDermott Events.

New Notice Requirements for Retirement Plans Seeking IRS Approval of Church Plan Status

by McDermott Will & Schulte | Oct 24, 2011 | Retirement Plans

by Ralph E. DeJong, Todd A. Solomon and Patrick D. Ryan

Revenue Procedure 2011-44 modifies the procedures for submitting a private letter ruling request that a retirement plan constitutes a church plan to include a requirement that the applicant provide a notice to certain interested persons. The guidance provides rules regarding the timing and method for providing the notice as well as a Model Notice that applicants can modify as required.

Letter ruling applicants are required to provide a notice to each plan participant, beneficiary, QDRO alternate payee, and any employee organization representing employees who are plan participants (the interested parties). The notice informs recipients that the plan is not protected by ERISA’s statutory protections, including eligibility rules, vesting rules and minimum funding requirements.

A request for a letter ruling filed on or after September 26, 2011 must include a copy of the notice along with a statement that the notice was provided interested parties. An applicant whose letter ruling request is pending with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) on September 26, 2011 must submit by November 25, 2011, a copy of the notice along with a cover letter containing a statement that references the pending request and the date the notice was provided to interested persons. The IRS may consider the letter ruling request as withdrawn if the notice is submitted after the November 25, 2011 deadline. If the applicant fails to submit the notice, the IRS will not rule on the pending request.

Plan sponsors with pending letter ruling requests should provide the notice to interested parties as soon as possible, and provide a copy to the IRS no later than November 25, 2011.

To read the full article, click here.

Third Circuit Holds that a Portion of Post-Petition Withdrawal Liability in Bankruptcy Is Entitled to Priority Over General Unsecured Claims

by McDermott Will & Schulte | Oct 3, 2011 | Labor, Retirement Plans

by Raymond Fernando, Michael Graham, Maureen O’Brien and Maggie McTigue

Recently, the Third Circuit held that withdrawal liability triggered after a bankruptcy filing date may be apportioned to pre- and post-petition service for the debtor, and that the withdrawal liability attributable to post-petition service may be entitled to priority over general unsecured claims under the Bankruptcy Code. Employers that participate in a multiemployer pension plan should determine the claims impact of withdrawal in light of this court decision and also assess whether filing for bankruptcy protection outside of the Third Circuit is appropriate.

Please click here for more information.

New PBGC Guidance Provides Premium Penalty Relief for Certain Late Payments and for Faulty Alternative Premium Funding Target Elections

by McDermott Will & Schulte | Sep 28, 2011 | Retirement Plans

by Joseph S. Adams, Maureen O’Brien and Patrick D. Ryan

On September 14, 2011, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) issued a notice (Notice) that provides relief to pension plans from penalties associated with certain late payment of premiums and situations involving the failure to properly elect the alternative premium funding target (APFT) to calculate the variable rate premium (VRP). According to PBGC’s press release, the agency was granting premium-related relief as part of a continuing effort to ease regulatory burdens on its customers. Plan sponsors and industry groups continue to request that the PBGC expand premium penalty relief.

Click here for additional information.

French Supreme Court Rules Unfairly Dismissed Employees Entitled to Damages for Lost Opportunity to Benefit From a Defined-Benefit Pension

by McDermott Will & Schulte | Aug 1, 2011 | Retirement Plans

by Jilali Maazouz and Sébastien Le Coeur

Background

In 2004, the Fédération Nationale du Crédit Agricole (FNCA) hired Mr. Rossi as one of its senior managers. Mr Rossi. was entitled to a defined-benefit pension, provided he was still employed by FNCA upon retirement. In 2006, FNCA dismissed Mr. Rossi for poor performance.

The Paris Court of Appeals held his dismissal unfair, but refused to award him damages for the lost opportunity to receive a defined-benefit pension. Mr. Rossi appealed to the Cour de Cassation, the French Supreme Court.

Decision

The French Supreme Court upheld the condition that the employee must still be employed by the company upon retirement in order to benefit from a pension. On this basis, Mr. Rossi’s claim to a pension was dismissed. However, the French Supreme Court held that, where the dismissal is found to be unfair, the employee sustains a loss caused by the lost opportunity to remain employed until retirement and benefit from a pension. On this basis, Mr. Rossi’s claim was allowed.

The Paris Court of Appeals will decide within the next couple of months the amount of damages Mr. Rossi is entitled to as compensation for that lost opportunity.

What Does This Mean for Employers?

When assessing the cost of dismissing a manager and preparing a settlement negotiation, the employer must now evaluate damages for the lost opportunity to benefit from a defined-benefit pension. The French Supreme Court offers no guidelines on this, which makes it a rather difficult task. The employer will first need to assess the probability that the employee would have stayed with the company until retirement. This will then have to be balanced with the amount the employee would have been entitled to. In many cases, the employee may also claim damages for the lost opportunity to make a profit on stock options.

Settlement claims with senior managers look likely to become more challenging. To avoid disputes and future, additional expense, it is worth seeking expert advice at the beginning of the dismissal process.

FBAR Filing Deadline for Extensions for Certain Individuals With Signature Authority

by McDermott Will & Schulte | Jun 29, 2011 | Fiduciary and Investment Issues, Retirement Plans

by Karen A. Simonsen, Todd A. Solomon and Patrick D. Ryan

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), a division of the U.S. Treasury Department, and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), recently issued three notices, FinCEN Notices 2011-1 and 2011-2 and IRS Notice 2011-54. Each notice granted an extension of the filing deadline for the Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBAR), IRS Form TD-F 90-22.1 to different groups of individuals with signature or other authority over certain foreign financial accounts for various filing years. Refer to our previous On the Subject for a discussion of whether an individual has signature or other authority over a foreign financial account.While the extensions provide welcome relief, some June 30, 2011 filing obligations still remain.

FinCEN Notice 2011-1

On May 31, 2011, FinCEN issued Notice 2011-1 (subsequently clarified on June 6, 2011), which grants a one-year extension of the filing deadline for the FBAR for the 2010 tax year, from June 30, 2011 to June 30, 2012, to some individuals with signature or other authority over certain foreign financial accounts.

The one-year extension relief provided in FinCEN Notice 2011-1 is limited to certain employees and officers of a publicly traded company or U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) registrant who have signature or other authority over, but no financial interest in, a foreign financial account. The relief does not apply to an employee or officer of an entity that is not a publicly traded company or of a non-SEC registrant that has signature or other authority, but no financial interest in, a foreign financial account.

IRS Notice 2011-54

On June 16, 2011, the IRS issued IRS Notice 2011-54, granting additional relief to persons with signature or other authority over, but no financial interest in, a foreign financial account held during calendar year 2009 or earlier calendar years. Previously, the IRS extended the FBAR filing deadline to June 30, 2011 for persons with signature or other authority over, but no financial interest in, a foreign financial account for 2009 and earlier calendar years. The IRS issued IRS Notice 2011-54 in reaction to concerns that individuals with signature authority over, but no financial interest in, a foreign financial account were encountering difficulty compiling the data necessary to complete the FBAR for 2009 and earlier calendar years.

IRS Notice 2011-54 extends the FBAR filing deadline from June 30, 2011 until November 1, 2011 for all persons with signature authority over, but no financial interest in, a foreign financial account in 2009 or earlier calendar years. The deadline for the 2010 calendar year remains June 30, 2011.

FinCEN Notice 2011-2

On June 17, 2011, FinCEN issued FinCEN Notice 2011-2, which grants a one-year extension of [...]

Continue Reading

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation Issues Final Rule on Termination Dates for Pension Plans of Bankrupt Sponsors

by McDermott Will & Schulte | Jun 28, 2011 | Retirement Plans

by Alan D. Nesburg, PC and Maureen O’Brien

On June 14, 2011, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) issued final regulations that apply to single-employer pension plans maintained by employers in bankruptcy. These regulations implement a change made by the Pension Protection Act of 2006 (PPA). The change affects the amount of benefits payable by the PBGC to participants.

If an underfunded pension plan terminates during the plan sponsor’s bankruptcy, the termination date is either agreed to by the plan administrator and the PBGC, or the date is set judicially. Before the PPA, the plan termination date was used to determine both the amount of and eligibility for benefits guaranteed by the PBGC to participants.

The PPA amended the Employee Income Retirement Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) to substitute the bankruptcy filing date for the plan termination date for these two important purposes: determining the amount of participants’ guaranteed benefits under Section 4022 of ERISA and determining whether benefits are guaranteed under Section 4044 of ERISA.

The new PBGC regulations include these provisions:

Guaranteed benefits are based on the amount of a participant’s service and compensation as of the bankruptcy filing date.
The maximum guaranteed benefit, the phase-in limit, and the accrued-at-normal limit are all determined as of the bankruptcy filing date.
Only nonforfeitable benefits as of the bankruptcy filing date are guaranteed.
Subsidized early retirement benefits (or disability or other benefits) to which a participant becomes entitled between the bankruptcy filing date and the actual termination date of the plan will continue in pay status (or may go into pay status), but the amount of the benefit is reduced to reflect that the subsidy (or other benefit) is not guaranteed.
Benefits in priority category 3 under Section 4044 of ERISA are benefits in pay status or that could have been in pay status three years before the bankruptcy filing date (priority category 3 benefits are guaranteed by the PBGC).
If a plan has more than one contributing sponsor and all contributing sponsors did not file for bankruptcy on the same date, PBGC will determine the bankruptcy filing date based on the individual facts and circumstances.

Importantly, under PPA the bankruptcy filing date was not substituted for the plan termination date for all purposes. The termination date still controls for purposes of determining both the amount of a plan’s unfunded liabilities and the parties responsible for those liabilities under Section 4062 of ERISA.

The regulations have an effective date of July 14, 2011, but the PPA change applies if bankruptcy proceedings were initiated on or after September 16, 2006. Plan sponsors that have filed for bankruptcy or are considering such a filing should contact their regular McDermott attorney to discuss the effect of the new regulations.

Supreme Court Rules SPD Does Not Trump Plan Document, but Emphasizes Availability of Equitable Remedies Where Employer Misleads

by McDermott Will & Emery | Jun 21, 2011 | Retirement Plans

by Stephen Pavlick and Nancy S. Gerrie

The Supreme Court of the United States in the CIGNA decision confirms, in what may be hailed as a victory for plan sponsors, that information contained in a summary plan description does not itself constitute the “terms” of a benefit plan for purposes of filing claims for benefits. However, the majority’s assertion that participants have a vast arsenal of equitable relief under ERISA section 502(a)(3) will likely invigorate both participants and plaintiffs’ attorneys. Because the surcharge remedy is one of the few equitable remedies that provide monetary relief, a likely increase in claims alleging notice violations and seeking a surcharge to plan participants is anticipated.

To read the full article, click here.

No Seventh Circuit Rehearing in Kraft ERISA “Excessive Fees” Case

by McDermott Will & Emery | Jun 9, 2011 | Benefit Controversies, Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs), Fiduciary and Investment Issues, Retirement Plans

by Chris C. Scheithauer and Joseph S. Adams

As previously described in this blog earlier this year, a divided Seventh Circuit panel reversed summary judgment in favor of Kraft Foods Global, Inc. in a class action involving allegedly excessive fees in the Kraft 401(k) plan. Shortly thereafter, Kraft petitioned for rehearing of the case by the entire Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals en banc. Further, a “friend of the court” brief submitted jointly by The ERISA Industry Committee (ERIC), the American Benefits Council (ABC), the Profit Sharing/401k Council of America (PSCA), and U.S. Chamber of Commerce urged the Seventh Circuit to rehear the case en banc.

However, on May 26, 2011, in a single page opinion, the Seventh Circuit denied Kraft’s motion, noting that no judge in active service for the Seventh Circuit requested a vote on the petition for rehearing en banc and that the original three judge panel voted 2-1 against rehearing the case – the same split as in the panel’s original order reversing summary judgment.

As a result, the Seventh Circuit’s original order reversing summary judgment will likely be the “go-to” cite for plaintiffs’ attorneys seeking to escape summary judgment on excessive fee claims. However, as noted by the dissent in that order, the Seventh Circuit’s decision “will only serve to steer [fiduciaries’] attention toward avoiding litigation instead of managing employee wealth.”

The Dodd-Frank Act’s Impact on Pension Plan Investment Options

by McDermott Will & Emery | May 25, 2011 | Fiduciary and Investment Issues, Retirement Plans

by Maureen O’Brien, Karen A. Simonsen and Adrienne Walker Porter

Pension plans use swaps to manage interest rate risks and other risks and to reduce volatility with respect to funding obligations. The Dodd-Frank Act established a comprehensive regulatory framework for swaps. The legislation was enacted to reduce risk, increase transparency and promote market integrity within the financial system, including the comprehensive regulation and required registration of swap dealers and major swap participants.

The Dodd-Frank Act has introduced new challenges in managing risks and liabilities of pension plans by subjecting ERISA plans to new requirements under the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). If pension plans are unable to use swaps, plan costs and funding volatility could rise sharply. This would undermine participants’ retirement security and would force employers to reserve, in the aggregate, billions of additional dollars to address increased funding volatility. In order to meet the rulemaking objectives specified under the Dodd-Frank Act, regulators and Congress have introduced significant changes that may impact how pension plans manage their funded status.

In December of 2010, the CFTC released proposed regulations outlining business conduct standards for swap dealers and major swap participants. The regulations highlighted the issue that swap dealers engaging in typical business activities with respect to “special entities” could be treated as ERISA fiduciaries. (The Dodd-Frank Act provides that a special entity includes an employee benefit plan.) ERISA provides that, generally, any transaction between a fiduciary and the ERISA plan with respect to which it owes fiduciary duties is prohibited. Therefore, in effect, the proposed regulations may preclude swap dealers from entering into swap transactions with employee benefit plans subject to ERISA. Additionally, the Department of Labor’s proposed rule relating to the definition of the term “fiduciary” under ERISA may include advisors that perform plan asset valuations, which is an activity conducted by swap dealers under the CFTC proposed regulations.
On April 12, 2011, the CFTC issued proposed regulations establishing minimum initial and variation margin requirements for non-cleared swaps entered into by CFTC-regulated swap dealers and major swap participants. Under the proposed rules, pension plans would be included in the category of high-risk financial entities, subject to the most stringent requirements. Such high-risk financial entities are required to post collateral and are limited to the type of assets that may be used to post margin. This change could significantly increase the cost of managing pension plans.
On May 4, 2011, the U.S. House of Representatives Agriculture Committee approved H.R. 1573, legislation providing the CFTC and SEC with 18 additional months to finalize many of the rules relating to swaps. The rules defining swaps-related products and participants and the rules relating to reporting recordkeeping, however, are to be finalized by July 15, 2011. The CFTC also recently released a notice reopening the comment period for many of the proposed regulations related to the Dodd-Frank Act.

Plan sponsors should continue to monitor the regulatory and legislative activity surrounding pension plans’ ability to use [...]

Continue Reading