In the ongoing effort to help individuals impacted by COVID-19, Congress passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Securities Act (CARES Act) on March 27, 2020. The President signed the CARES Act into law the same day. The historic stimulus package provides wide-ranging relief for both employers and employees. This includes rules that impact health and welfare, retirement and executive compensation plans and programs.
For more information about the impact of the CARES Act on employer-provided benefits, access our On the Subject articles on the:
In addition, for information about the frequently asked questions regarding health and welfare, retirement and executive compensation issues in the COVID-19 era, access our FAQs.
The Director of the SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance William Hinman gave a speech in which he discussed whether a digital asset originally offered as a security can become something other than a security over time. The speech provided some of the most important considerations to date for analysis of blockchain token transactions under US securities law.
Executive compensation for the health care industry is always an important topic for the board, made even more critical by the provisions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and recent governance trends. We’re joined by two of the leading health care industry voices on executive compensation practices: Tim Cotter of Sullivan, Cotter and Associates, and McDermott partner Ralph DeJong.
After some speculation about a delay in implementation of the final rules on claims adjudication of disability claims under welfare and retirement plans (the Final Rule), the US Department of Labor (DOL) confirmed that the Final Rule will be applicable beginning April 1, 2018. McDermott’s article detailing the new requirements in the Final Rule can be found here. A disability welfare or retirement benefit claim, as well as claims under certain executive compensation arrangements, severance plans and other payment plans subject to ERISA’s claims procedures, will be subject to the Final Rule if the benefit is conditioned upon a claimant’s disability, and the claims adjudicator must make a determination of disability in order to decide the claim. However, if a plan links the finding of disability to a determination made by a party other than the plan (e.g., a finding made under the employer’s long-term disability plan or a determination of disability made by the Social Security Administration), then the special rules for disability claims are not applicable to a claim for benefits under such plan.
Plan sponsors and administrators should review retirement, welfare, executive compensation and severance plans to determine whether such benefits are subject to the Final Rule’s additional requirements. Any language detailing claim procedures in plan documents and summary plan descriptions should be updated, and disability claim and appeal administrative practices and procedures, as well as disability claim and appeal notices should be revised to comply with the Final Rule.
The Senate’s final tax reform bill contains several troubling provisions for tax-exempt organizations but represents an improvement over last month’s proposed legislation, which caused concern across the nonprofit sector.
On April 29, 2015, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), by a three-to-two vote, proposed new rules that would prescribe new mandatory pay-versus-performance disclosure. The proposed rule would include specific information showing the relationship between executive compensation “actually paid” and financial performance of the registrant. The proposed rule, issue under Section 953(a) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act), would add a new Item 402(v) to Regulation S-K.
The key take-away is that covered insurers would not be allowed to use their existing pay for performance disclosure approaches to meet the requirements under the proposed rule. Instead, if the proposed rule is finalized in its current form, covered insurers would be required to include a new “Pay Versus Performance” table. Covered insurers would also be required to provide a “clear description” of the relationship between certain data elements included in the new table.
The proposed rule is “designed, in part, to enhance comparability across registrants. . .” perhaps in connection with shareholders’ “Say on Pay” votes. However, commissioners differed on the usefulness of the information that would be provided by the proposed rule, and the final vote was divided along political lines–similar to how the commissioners voted on the CEO Pay Ratio proposal.
Subscribe
