How Do You Like Me Now… Plan Fiduciary Considerations Following New DOL Crypto Guidance

/in , , , , , , ,

by Alex Smith

The Department of Labor recently issued Compliance Assistance Release No. 2025-01 rescinding Compliance Assistance Release No. 2022-01 that directed 401(k) plan fiduciaries to exercise “extreme care” before adding cryptocurrency as a plan investment option. While the DOL’s recent guidance rescinds its 2022 guidance, it neither blesses cryptocurrency as an appropriate retirement plan investment option nor modifies ERISA’s fiduciary duties. Read more

No Shoes, No Shirt, No Problems… But Nonenforcement Policy Doesn’t Make Mental Health Parity Compliance Optional

/in , , , , , ,

by Alex Smith

The Departments of Labor, Treasury, and Health and Human Services (the “Departments”) recently announced a nonenforcement policy with respect to the 2024 Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (“MHPAEA”) regulations or otherwise pursue enforcement actions based on a failure to comply, at least temporarily. The Departments appear to have taken this approach to be consistent with a pending lawsuit challenging the 2024 regulations. The Departments indicated the nonenforcement policy will apply until 18 months after the litigation has concluded. The Departments also indicated they will be reexamining the MHPAEA enforcement program more broadly. Read more

Truck on Fire … Supreme Court Relaxes ERISA Pleading Standards

/in , , , , , , , , ,

by Alex Smith

The Supreme Court recently issued a decision regarding the pleading standards for ERISA prohibited transactions claims in a case involving Cornell’s 403(b) plan to resolve a federal circuit court split. Under the Supreme Court’s decision, plaintiffs will only need to allege that the plan engaged in a prohibited transaction. The plaintiffs will not need to also allege the absence of a prohibited transaction exemption.

The Supreme Court’s decision could have far-reaching consequences because most transactions a retirement plan enters into with a service provider—such as a recordkeeper, investment advisor, or investment manager—constitute prohibited transactions with a party-in-interest (for which a prohibited transaction exemption typically applies). Plaintiffs may now be able to file lawsuits containing prohibited transaction claims capable of surviving motions to dismiss even though the allegations are meritless or frivolous. For example, the transaction subject to a claim may clearly fit within a prohibited transaction exemption, such as making reasonable arrangements for services for a reasonable price. This could be the case even if the plaintiff’s related ERISA breach of fiduciary duty claims that are part of the lawsuit are unable to survive a motion to dismiss. Read more

Every Little Thing … Employer Considerations as New 401(k) Lawsuit Includes Extensive Claims

/in , , , , , , , , ,

by Alex Smith

A recently filed lawsuit related to Swiss Re’s 401(k) plan stands out because of the extensive assortment of allegations. These allegations against Swiss Re, its 401(k) plan fiduciaries, and the plan’s recordkeeper include:

  • the plan paid excessive recordkeeping fees;
  • the plan’s investment options, including its target date funds, underperformed;
  • some of the plan’s investment options offered lower cost share classes than the share class available in the plan;
  • the plan failed to utilize the assets in the forfeiture account;
  • the plan’s recordkeeper misused participant data to market its Roth IRAs to participants; and
  • the plan’s fiduciaries failed to monitor the recordkeeper’s misuse of participant data.

Read more

Smoke ‘Em One By One … Navigating the Wave of Tobacco Surcharge Lawsuits

/in , , , , , , ,

by Alex Smith

Over the past several months, numerous large employers and their health plan fiduciaries have faced lawsuits regarding their health plan’s tobacco surcharge. A tobacco surcharge wellness program typically charges a higher monthly premium to employees and covered dependents who smoke or otherwise use tobacco products to account for some of the higher medical costs associated with tobacco use. Tobacco users can typically avoid the surcharge by completing a smoking cessation program, regardless of whether they actually quit.

This wave of putative class action lawsuits began earlier this year even though employer health plan tobacco surcharges have been around for years and the HIPAA regulations permitting the surcharges were last updated in 2013. Since then, numerous lawsuits challenging employer health plan tobacco surcharge programs have been filed. Courts have yet to rule on the recently filed lawsuits, with the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissing one of the lawsuits prior to the court ruling on the employer’s motion to dismiss. Read more

Heads California, Tails Carolina… Employer Considerations Following Wave of 401(k) Forfeiture Lawsuits

/in , , , , , , , ,

by Alex Smith

Over the past year, numerous employers and their 401(k) plan fiduciaries have faced lawsuits regarding how forfeited employer contributions to their 401(k) plan are utilized.  This wave of lawsuits began approximately a year ago when a plaintiff’s law firm filed putative class action lawsuits raising this novel claim against multiple large employers, including Intuit, Clorox, and Thermo Fisher Scientific in California federal courts.  Since then, this claim has been included in numerous 401(k) plan lawsuits even though none of these lawsuits have reached a final judgment on the merits and only five have had decisions on motions to dismiss.

These lawsuits allege that the employer and its 401(k) plan fiduciaries breached their fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (“ERISA”), by using forfeited employer contributions to the 401(k) plan to offset future employer contributions instead of using the forfeited amounts to offset 401(k) plan expenses that were charged to participant accounts.  The plaintiff’s counsel alleges that the employer and 401(k) plan fiduciaries are violating ERISA’s fiduciary requirements to make decisions for the benefit of plan participant because the employer benefits from a reduction in its future employer contributions at the expense of plan participants who have to pay for certain expenses that are charged to their 401(k) accounts. Read more

Vacation, All I Ever Wanted – But Don’t Forget Your July Compliance Deadlines

/in , , , , , , , , ,

by Benjamin Gibbons

Congratulations! You made it to summer, that wonderful time of year when things at work (hopefully) slow down a bit and you’re able to take some well-deserved time off. Though before you Go-Go(‘s) (do you see what I did there?), be sure your July employee benefits compliance deadlines are covered.

July 29 – Summary of Material Modifications (SMM) – Were any of your organization’s plans materially amended last year? If so, you may be required to furnish an SMM to participants (or a revised summary plan description). Those SMMs must be provided no later than 210 days after the end of the plan year in which the change was adopted. So, for a 2023 change, the SMM deadline would fall on July 29 (you get an extra day this year because 210 days falls on July 28, a weekend). Read more

ERISA, ERISA…Just an Old Sweet Song Keeps ERISA on my Mind

/in , , , , , , , ,

by Becky Achten

“Georgia” on your mind? As we look towards the upcoming Masters golf tournament weekend, our minds turn to the condition of the greens (exquisite), the players tee off order (does afternoon help or hinder Tiger on an expected rainy day?), and who will make that amazing chip shot out of the bunker to save par. It may not get quite the level of TV viewership of other sporting events, but benefit plan administration is a lot like golf: a series of pars, birdies and bogies, and—oh my, not a double bogie!

If you’re hitting par with your benefit plans, they’re operating smoothly, participants are happy with the offerings, and you’re in compliance with the most obvious regulations. All is good, but you probably won’t earn a green jacket. Read more

You Live, You Learn… Correcting “Qualification Failures” under the Self-Correction Program

/in , ,

by Leslie Thomson

 The Employee Plans Compliance Resolution System (“EPCRS”), as set forth in Revenue Procedure 2021-30, allows plan sponsors to correct “Qualification Failures,” which are defined as any plan document, operational, demographic or employer eligibility failures. Failure to follow the terms of a plan constitutes an operational failure.

Operational Failures can be corrected without IRS supervision under the Self-Correction Program (“SCP”) of EPCRS without paying a fee or sanction in two circumstances: (1) insignificant operational defects can be corrected at any time, even if the plan is under an IRS audit; and (2) significant operational defects can be corrected by the end of the third plan year following the plan year in which the defect arose. EPCRS summarizes the factors a plan sponsor may use to determine if a failure is insignificant or not. Moreover, SCP is only available if the plan sponsor has established practices and procedures reasonably designed to promote and facilitate overall compliance with applicable Internal Revenue Code requirements, and the failure occurred through an oversight or mistake in applying the procedures or because the procedures were not sufficient to prevent the occurrence of the failure. Read more

Deferred Compensation Arrangements for Non-Profits: What I’ve Felt, What I’ve Known, Is Not Consistent with the Code

/in , , ,

by Benjamin Gibbons

Deferred compensation options for executives of tax-exempt entities are often misunderstood by those organizations who have not previously delved into them. Traditional tax-exempt organizations – think charities and non-profits – are subject not only to the deferred compensation rules of Section 409A of the tax code, but also Section 457 (though note that Section 457 does not apply to deferred compensation arrangements of churches). Section 457-subject organizations without deferred compensation experience are often under the impression that they are able to establish deferred compensation arrangements that are similar to those of for-profit entities, in that the right to deferred compensation can vest now and be taxed at a later date. When such organizations begin moving forward to put a deferred compensation arrangement place, they are often surprised to learn that Section 457 generally limits their ability do so.

The most analogous deferred compensation arrangement for tax-exempt executives compared to a traditional for-profit deferred compensation plan is what’s generally known as a Section 457(f) plan. While there are a number of differences between a Section 457(f) plan and a for-profit deferred compensation plan, the biggest is the timing of the taxation of the deferred compensation. A for-profit deferred compensation plan can be designed so that once the right to deferred compensation vests, it can be taxed (for income tax purposes) on the date that it is paid, which can be many years in the future. With a Section 457(f) plan, once the deferred compensation vests, it becomes immediately taxable, even if the plan provides for payment of the deferred compensation in a future year. Read more