Fiduciary Responsibility |

New IRS Guidance On ESOP Investment Diversification Reminder To Tighten Compliance, Risk Management

May 12, 2013

Fiduciaries, administrators, sponsors, advisors, trustees and others with involvement or responsibility for Employee Stock Option Plans (ESOPs) should review these rules and ensure that appropriate steps are taken to update their plan terms and practices to comply with new rules scheduled to be published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin on May 13, 2013 by the Internal Revenue Service on investment diversification.

Maintaining legally compliant and defensible arrangements for investing company stock in employee stock and other defined contribution employee benefit and deferred compensation plans continues to become increasingly complicated in the face of the expanding range of rules adopted by Congress and federal regulators looking to protect participants against stock drop and other actual or perceived abuse.

Among these tightening requirements are new rules announced in Notice 2013-17, which address the circumstances in which an ESOP that satisfied the diversification requirements of § 401(a)(28)(B)(i) by allowing distribution of a portion of a participant’s account has become subject to the diversification requirements of § 401(a)(35). Notice 2013-17 will be published in Internal Revenue Bulletin 2013-20 on May 13, 2013.

The new diversification rules are reflective of a host of new and proposed rules and enforcement positions that Congress and federal regulators have or are contemplating to address perceived abuses or risks arising from the investment or retention of company stock in employee benefit plans. Some of this new regulation arises from decline in retirement plan asset value that results from declines in stock value when the economy or a particular business suffers economic setbacks. Along with these economic concerns, other regulation seeks to safeguard participants and plans against Enron, Madoff or other activities by plan sponsors, investment advisors, executives or others that Congress or regulators perceive inappropriately put retirement and savings of workers at risk. Noncompliance with these requirements risks not only tax qualification concerns, but also may expose decision-makers to fiduciary or other liability under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act fiduciary responsibility and prohibited transaction rules, securities laws, and other laws.

In response to Notice 2013-17 and other new rules, fiduciaries, administrators, sponsors, advisors, trustees and others with involvement or responsibility for ESOP should review these rules and ensure that appropriate steps are taken to update their plan terms and practices to comply with this new guidance. In conjunction with this review, most also will find advisable to review the adequacy of their existing policies and plan terms about their program’s investments in company and other stock in light of evolving fiduciary responsibility and other investment rules and enforcement guidance of the Internal Revenue Service as well as the Department of Labor Employee Benefit Security Administration and the Securities and Exchange Commission.

If you have any questions or need help reviewing and updating your ESOP or other employee benefit plans, or with any other workforce management, employee benefits or compensation matters, please do not hesitate to contact the author of this update, Board Certified Labor and Employment Attorney and Management Consultant Cynthia Marcotte Stamer at 469.767.8872.

For Help or More Information

If you need help with preparing these or other ACA compliance or with reviewing and updating, administering or defending your group health or other employee benefit, human resources, insurance, health care matters or related documents or practices, please contact the author of this update, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Council, immediate past Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group and current Co-Chair of its Welfare Benefit Committee, Vice-Chair of the ABA TIPS Employee Benefits Committee, a council member of the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, and past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Ms. Stamer is recognized, internationally, nationally and locally for her more than 25 years of work, advocacy, education and publications on cutting edge health and managed care, employee benefit, human resources and related workforce, insurance and financial services, and health care matters including extensive experience on HIPAA and other privacy and data security issues.

A board certified labor and employment attorney widely known for her extensive and creative knowledge and experienced with these and other employment, employee benefit and compensation matters, Ms. Stamer continuously advises and assists employers, employee benefit plans, their sponsoring employers, fiduciaries, insurers, administrators, service providers, insurers and others to monitor and respond to evolving legal and operational requirements and to design, administer, document and defend medical and other welfare benefit, qualified and non-qualified deferred compensation and retirement, severance and other employee benefit, compensation, and human resources, management and other programs and practices tailored to the client’s human resources, employee benefits or other management goals. A primary drafter of the Bolivian Social Security pension privatization law, Ms. Stamer also works extensively with management, service provider and other clients to monitor legislative and regulatory developments and to deal with Congressional and state legislators, regulators, and enforcement officials concerning regulatory, investigatory or enforcement concerns.

Extensively published and a popular speaker on HIPAA and other data security matters, Ms. Stamer works extensively with health care providers, health plans, employers, insurance and financial services, technology and other clients on privacy, data seurity and other privacy and cybercrime concerns. She also serves as the Scribe for the ABA JCEB Agency Techical Sessions Meetings with the Office of Civil Rights which occur each May in Washington, D.C.

Recognized in Who’s Who In American Professionals and both an American Bar Association (ABA) and a State Bar of Texas Fellow, Ms. Stamer serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Employee Benefits News, the editor and publisher of Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update and other Solutions Law Press Publications, and active in a multitude of other employee benefits, human resources and other professional and civic organizations. She also is a widely published author and highly regarded speaker on these matters. Her insights on these and other matters appear in the Bureau of National Affairs, Spencer Publications, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, Modern and many other national and local publications. You can learn more about Ms. Stamer and her experience, review some of her other training, speaking, publications and other resources, and register to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns from Ms. Stamer here.

Other Resources

If you found this update of interest, you also may be interested in reviewing some of the other updates and publications authored by Ms. Stamer available including:

For important information about this communication click here. THE FOLLOWING DISCLAIMER IS INCLUDED TO COMPLY WITH AND IN RESPONSE TO U.S. TREASURY DEPARTMENT CIRCULAR 230 REGULATIONS. ANY STATEMENTS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE NOT INTENDED OR WRITTEN BY THE WRITER TO BE USED, AND NOTHING CONTAINED HEREIN CAN BE USED BY YOU OR ANY OTHER PERSON, FOR THE PURPOSE OF (1) AVOIDING PENALTIES THAT MAY BE IMPOSED UNDER FEDERAL TAX LAW, OR (2) PROMOTING, MARKETING OR RECOMMENDING TO ANOTHER PARTY ANY TAX-RELATED TRANSACTION OR MATTER ADDRESSED HEREIN.

Leave a Comment » | 105(h), Bankruptcy, Consumer Protection, Corporate Compliance, Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, Excise Tax, Fiduciary Responsibility, Health Plans, Human Resources, Insurance, Reporting & Disclosure, Tax, Uncategorized | Tagged: Diversification, Esops, Fiduciary Responsibility | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Peter Madoff 10 Sentence For Defrauding ERISA Plans Reminder Manage Plan Investment Responsibilities

December 27, 2012

Peter Madoff (Madoff), the former Chief Compliance Officer and Senior Managing Director of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC (BLMI), was sentenced on December 20, 2012 to 10 years in prison after he pled guilty among other things, to conspiracy to commit securities fraud, tax fraud, mail fraud, ERISA fraud and falsifying records of an investment adviser.

In addition to the prison term, Madoff also was sentenced to one year of supervised release, ordered to pay a $200 special assessment, and ordered to forfeit $143.1 billion, including all of his real and personal property. This amount represents all of the investor funds paid into BLMIS from 1996 – the start of Madoff’s involvement in the conspiracy – through December 2008.

As part of the defendant’s forfeiture, the Government previously entered into a settlement with Madoff’s family that requires the forfeiture of all of his wife Marion’s and daughter Shana’s assets, and assets belonging to other family members. The surrendered assets include, among other things, several homes, a Ferrari and more than $10 million in cash and securities. Marion Madoff was left with approximately $771,733 to live on for the rest of her life.

Madoff’s Sentence Part of Continuing Actions Seeking To Rectify BLMIS Fraud

Among other things, the Superseding Information against Madoff charged that the overt acts in the conspiracy count also included, among other things, making false statements to investors about BLMIS’s compliance program and the nature and scope of its Investment Advisory business. Madoff pled guilty in June 2012. He was sentenced in Manhattan federal court by U.S. District Judge Laura Taylor Swain.

Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara said: “Peter Madoff was a gatekeeper, who was supposed to guard against fraud, but instead enabled it – facilitating his brother Bernie’s breathtaking scheme by falsifying compliance records and lying to both regulators and clients of BLMIS. The decade he will spend in prison and the disgorgement of his assets are a just result. Our efforts to hold to account anyone and everyone who played a role in this unprecedented Ponzi scheme continue.”

According to the Superseding Information to which Madoff pled guilty and other court filings:

Madoff was employed at BLMIS from 1965 through December 2008. Beginning in 1969, he became the Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”) and Senior Managing Director of BLMIS. In his role as CCO, Madoff created false and misleading BLMIS compliance documents, as well as false reports that were filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) that materially misstated the nature and scope of BLMIS’s Investment Advisory (“IA”) business.
As CCO, Madoff created numerous false compliance documents in which he stated that he had performed compliance reviews of the trading in the BLMIS IA business on a regular basis, when in reality, the reviews were never performed. The false statements were designed to mislead regulators, auditors, and IA clients.
In August 2006, BLMIS registered as an investment adviser with the SEC. As a registered investment adviser, on at least an annual basis, BLMIS was required to file forms with the SEC that are used as part of the oversight process of investment advisers. Madoff was integrally involved with both the SEC registration process and in the creation of the forms, known as “Forms ADV,” which were materially false and misleading. The numerous false statements in the Forms ADV created the false appearance that BLMIS’s IA business had a small number of highly sophisticated clients and far fewer assets under management than was actually the case. Madoff also misrepresented that he, as CCO, ensured that reviews of the IA trading were being performed.
From 1998 through 2008, Madoff engaged in a tax fraud scheme involving the transfer of wealth within the Madoff family in ways that allowed him to avoid paying millions of dollars in required taxes to the IRS. Most, if not all of the “wealth,” came directly or indirectly from IA client funds held at BLMIS. The schemes in which he engaged also allowed Bernard L. Madoff to evade his tax obligations.
The methods by which Madoff engaged in tax fraud included the following:
Madoff also arranged for his wife to have a “no-show” job at BLMIS from which she received between approximately $100,000 to $160,000 per year in salary, a 401(k), and health benefits to which she was not entitled.
In December 2008, when the collapse of BLMIS was virtually certain, Madoff agreed with others to send the $300 million that remained in the IA accounts to preferred employees, family members and friends. BLMIS collapsed before the funds were ever disbursed. On December 10, 2008, one day prior to BLMIS’s collapse, Madoff also withdrew $200,000 from BLMIS for his personal use.
Madoff received approximately $15,700,000 from Bernard L. Madoff and his wife, and executed sham promissory notes to make it appear that the transfers were loans, in order to avoid paying taxes;
Madoff gave approximately $9,900,000 to family members, and in order to avoid paying taxes, executed sham promissory notes to make it appear that the transfers of these funds were loans;
Madoff did not pay taxes on approximately $7,750,000 that he received from BLMIS;
Madoff received approximately $16,800,000 from Bernard L. Madoff from two sham trades, and disguised the proceeds of the trades as long-term stock transactions in order to take advantage of the lower tax rate for long-term capital gains;
Madoff charged approximately $175,000 in personal expenses to a corporate American Express card and did not report those expenses as income.

Madoff Victim Compensation Process Continues

In addition to the sentencing of Madoff, the Government has taken steps to clear the way to begin distributing assets forfeited by Peter Madoff in connection with the victim compensation process by filing a motion requesting that the Court find restitution to be impracticable, A similar motion was granted by United States Circuit Judge Denny Chin, who as a United States District Judge sentenced Bernard L. Madoff in 2009. The Department of Justice intends to return the assets forfeited as a result of the Madoff fraud to victims through the remission process.

Richard C. Breeden was retained to serve as Special Master on behalf of the Department of Justice to administer the process of compensating the victims of the Madoff fraud with the forfeited funds. A former chairman of the SEC, Mr. Breeden is Chairman of Richard C. Breeden & Co., which has been involved in (among other things) the administration and distribution of securities fraud claims since 1996. Among other things, Mr. Breeden has served as Corporate Monitor of WorldCom, Inc. and KPMG under its deferred prosecution agreement with the U.S. Attorney’s Office. Mr. Breeden also served as remission special master in connection with the fraud committed through Adelphia Communications Corporation. In April 2012, more than $728 million forfeited in connection with this Office’s investigation and prosecution of the Adelphia fraud was distributed to approximately 8,500 victims, the largest single distribution of forfeited assets to victims in Department of Justice history.

Now that a new Special Master has been retained, and given the pledge of SIPC Trustee Irving Picard and his counsel to lend their support and resources to the new Special Master for the benefit of the fraud victims, we expect the victim claims process to begin shortly. It is anticipated that victims who filed claims in the SIPA proceeding will not have to refile their claims to be eligible for remission. New information about the remission Special Master, and information about the victim claims process, will be posted on the Office’s Madoff website at http://www.justice.gov/usao/nys/vw_cases/madoff.html as soon as it becomes available, along with a link to a dedicated website Mr. Breeden’s firm will establish in connection with the remission proceedings.

Investment Advisors and Others With Discretion Over Funds Should Exercise Fiduciary Care

While the Madorf scandle represents an exceptionally large and long-standing stream of mishandling of employee benefit funds, the investigations and prosecutions also serve as a reminder of the need to carefully comply with the fiduciary responsibility and other requirements of ERISA and other laws to investment advisors and other employee benefit plan asset service providers, plan committees and fiduciaries and the plan sponsors, boards and other individuals responsible for investing or handling employee benefit monies or choosing the parties that possess and exercise that discretion.

ERISA generally requires that plan asset investments be made prudently and for the exclusive benefit of participants and beneficiaries. Service providers or others with discretionary responsibiliity or that are investment managers of plan assets must be prudently selected based on careful credentialing and other procedures. e No prohibited transactions should be permitted. Fees and other compensation must be set appropriately and properly reported in accordance with ERISA’s fee disclosure rules. The actions and performance of parties investing in plan assets and their investment performance must be reviewed and monitored prudently. Proper bonding must be maintained. Concerns and questions about these activities must be timely investigated in a prudent manner. Failure to properly conduct these and other ERISA fiduciary responsibilities can expose responsible parties to personal liability for losses, profits improperly realized, a fiduciary administrative penalties, disqualification to serve in plan fiduciary or other positions, and attorneys fees and other costs of recovery, as well as in certain cases like the Madorff fraud, criminal prosecution.

For Help or More Information

If you need help reviewing and updating, administering or defending your employee benefit, human resources, insurance, health care matters or related documents or practices to monitor or respond to evolving laws and regulations, drafting or administering programs, resolving or defending audits, investigations or disputes or other employee benefit, human resources, safety, compliance or risk management concerns, please contact the author of this update, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.

About Ms. Stamer

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Council, immediate past Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group and current Co-Chair of its Welfare Benefit Committee, Vice-Chair of the ABA TIPS Employee Benefits Committee, a council member of the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, and past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Ms. Stamer is recognized, internationally, nationally and locally for her more than 24 years of work, advocacy, education and publications on cutting edge health and managed care, employee benefit, human resources and related workforce, insurance and financial services, and health care matters.

About Solutions Law Press

Solutions Law Press™ provides business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other resources, training and education on human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press resources at www.solutionslawpress.com including:

1 Comment | ADA, Corporate Compliance, EEOC, Employers, GINA, Human Resources, OFCCP, Retaliation | Tagged: defined benefit plan, Employer, ERISA, Fiduciary Responsibility, Human Resources, pension plan, plan qualification, profit sharing plan, Retirement Plans, Tax | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

ESOP, Other Employee Plan Investments In Company Stock Land Plans, Fiduciaries, Sponsors & Others In Hot Water

December 10, 2012

Companies that sponsor employee benefit plans that have purchased or own stock in their sponsor beware. Declines in the stock value of company stock purchased by employee stock ownership plans (ESOP) or other employee benefit plans in their plan sponsor have a growing number of plans and the plan sponsors, sponsoring company owners and management, plan trustees and other plan fiduciaries in hot water with the Department of Labor. ESOP or other employee plans that have purchased or allow investments in company stock and their sponsors, fiduciaries and advisors should carefully review for defensibility the current stock value, the purchase price and analysis supporting that purchase and other aspects of these investments of plan assets and take carefully documented action to prove the prudence and other appropriateness of the investment and continued retention of the investment in these assets.

Company Stock Investments Carry Special ERISA Risks

Purchases of company stock by an ESOP or other employee benefit plan can create a wide range of risks under the fiduciary responsibility rules of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). When making investment or other decisions under an employee benefit plan, the general fiduciary duty standards of ERISA § 404 generally require plan fiduciaries to act prudently and solely in the interest of participants and beneficiaries. Meanwhile, except in certain narrow circumstances and subject to fulfillment of ERISA § 404, the prohibited transaction rules of ERISA § 406 among other things prohibits plan fiduciaries from causing the plan to engage in a transaction, if he knows or should know that such transaction is a direct or indirect:

Sale or exchange, or leasing, of any property between the plan and a party in interest;
Furnishing of goods, services, or facilities between the plan and a party in interest;
Transfer to, or use by or for the benefit of a party in interest, of any assets of the plan; or
Acquisition, on behalf of the plan, of any employer security or employer real property in violation of section 1107 (a) of this title.

Stock Drops Create Rising Exposures For Plans Invested In Company Stock

Amid economic downturns or other situations where the stock value of company held by plans significantly lower than the price the plan paid for the stock, the Labor Department, plaintiffs in private lawsuits or both may bring “stock drop” or other lawsuits against the plan, its sponsor and its officers and board members, its fiduciaries and others for breach of fiduciary duties under these rules. See e.g., Enron v. Tittle, 463 F.3d 410 (5th Cir. 2006); In Re: BP p.l.c. ERISA Litig., No. 4:10-cv-4214 (S.D. Texas); Vivian v. Worldcom (N.D. Cal. 2002). Since the sponsoring company is a party-in-interest of the plan, using plan assets to purchase company stock or other activities resulting in the inclusion of company stock among the plan assets held by the plan creates presumptions of impropriety that impose higher than usual burdens upon the plan, its sponsor and fiduciaries to prove the appropriateness of the transaction. See e.g., Pfeil v. State Street Bank & Trust Co., 671 F.3d 585 (6th Cir. 2012).

The filing of stock drop cases tends to rise and fall in reflection to the economic times. Following the economic downturn in 2002, federal courts saw a surge in stop drop case challenges as well as Labor Department enforcement actions. The number of these cases dropped as the economy improved later in the decade only to rise again between 2010 and the present in response to the current economic crisis.

Tough Economic Times Fueled Stock Drops Creating Rising Risks & Enforcement

The latest economic downturn is fueling resurgence in these “stock drop” challenges. Fifteen stop drop lawsuits were filed during 2010 and 2011. Additional suits and Labor Department stop drop challenges have emerged this year.

In Griffin v. Flagstar Bancorp, Inc., No. 11-1497 (6th Cir. 2012), for instance, plaintiffs alleged various fiduciaries allegedly breached their duties under ERISA by allowing employer stock to be offered as a 401(k) plan investment option while the company was facing a precarious financial situation. The Griffin court overruled the lower court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s lawsuit. The Court of Appeals held that the defendants offering of company stock to plan participants made ERISA’s “safe harbor” (Section 404(c)) provision for participant self-directed investments inapplicable. The Sixth Circuit ruled “[a]fter reviewing the factual allegations in the complaint – which go far beyond documenting a simple drop in stock price to recite announcements from Flagstar itself, statements by analysts and financial media publications, and actions taken by Flagstar suggesting a precarious financial situation– we must conclude that the complaint raises a plausible claim for breach of fiduciary duty.”

In addition to private class action lawsuits like Griffin, plans holding company stock, their sponsors, owners, management and fiduciaries also need to be ready to defend against investigations and enforcement by the Labor Department, which often zealously investigates and takes enforcement action against plans, their fiduciaries, sponsors, company boards and management and others for losses to plan asset values resulting due to the investment or retention of investments by their plans in company stock. See also Labor Department Backs M&I Employees In Stock-Plan Suit.

Labor Department Suits Show Particular Risks For ESOPs

Over the past year, the Labor Department has been particularly aggressive in taking action when the value of company stock purchased or held by employee stock purchase plans or “ESOPS” drops significantly.

Rembar

For instance, the purchase by the Rembar Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan (“Rembar Plan”) of all the stock of its sponsor, Rembar Inc. has landed the trust company that served as the Plan’s independent fiduciary and Rembar Inc.’s owner and Chief Executive Officer in hot water.

The Labor Department is suing Rembar Inc.’s Chief Executive Officer and owner, Frank Firor, First Bankers Trust Services Inc. and the Rembar Plan to recover losses that the Labor Department charges Rembar Plan participants suffered because the Rembar Plan paid too much when it purchased all of the stock of Rembar Inc.

Rembar Inc. manufactures and distributes precision parts made from refractory metals. The Labor Department lawsuit alleges that, in June 2005, First Bankers Trust Services allowed the Rembar Plan to purchase 100 percent of the company’s stock from Firor and Firor’s relatives for $15.5 million. A Labor Department investigation found that First Bankers Trust Services failed to comply with its duty to understand the valuation report that set the purchase price, identify and question assumptions in the report, and verify that the conclusions in the report were consistent with the company’s financial data. As a result of First Bankers Trust Services’ failure to comply with its fiduciary duties, the Labor Department claims the Rembar Plan overpaid for the stock and suffered losses. The suit seeks, among other things, to recover jointly from First Bankers Trust Services and Firor all losses suffered by the Rembar Plan.

Maran

Similarly, the Labor Department also has filed an ERISA stock drop lawsuit against the Maran Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan (Maran Plan), First Bankers Trust Services Inc. and others to recover losses suffered by participants.

According to the pleadings, First Bankers Trust Services was hired as an independent fiduciary and trustee in connection with the company’s ESOP to decide whether, and at what price, to purchase shares of Maran Inc. from majority shareholders. The suit charges First Bankers Trust Services violated ERISA in 2006 when it approved the ESOP’s purchase of 49 percent of the outstanding stock of Maran Inc. for about $71 million, which was more than the fair market value. The Labor Department claims that as a result of the purchase of overvalued stock, the Maran Plan participants suffered significant losses. The suit seeks to recover all losses and have First Bankers Trust Services enjoined from serving as a fiduciary to ESOP plans.

Parrot

Likewise, the Labor Department in April sued in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California seeking to recover losses suffered by participants in the Parrot Cellular Employee Stock Ownership Plan (Parrot Plan).

The suit names as a defendant Dennis Webb, the principal owner of Entrepreneurial Ventures Inc. (EVI), which operates Parrot Cellular telephone retail stores in northern and central California, and is the sponsor of the Parrot Plan; EVI executives Matthew Fidiam and J. Robert Gallucci; Consulting Fiduciaries Inc., an Illinois company that served as the independent fiduciary and investment manager for the Parrot Plan in 2002 when the Parrot Plan bought 90 percent of EVI stock.

According to the pleadings, the Parrot Plan paid for more than $28 million to buy approximately 90 percent of EVI’s stock in 2002. Around the same time as the stock purchase, EVI also set aside $4 million pursuant to a deferred compensation agreement with Webb and entered into a second executive compensation agreement with Webb for $12 million.

The Labor Department charges defendants allegedly violated ERISA by rejecting their fiduciary duties of loyalty and prudence to the plan, engaging in self-dealing, permitting or engaging in prohibited transactions, and failing to monitor the performance of the plan’s appraiser when they caused or permitted the Parrot Plan to purchase EVI stock for more than fair market value. The suit also charges that Webb enriched himself by millions of dollars at the expense of the plan and its participants because a reasonable value for the company as of November 2002 was far less than the amounts the Parrot Plan paid for the stock and the total deferred compensation agreements entered into with Webb.

In addition to seeking the recovery of all losses to the Parrot Plan resulting from the above violations, the Labor Department’s suit seeks the disgorgement of unjust profits from Webb that he received from the two deferred compensation agreements and from his sale of EVI stock to the Parrot Plan.

Plans, Sponsors and Fiduciaries Must Act Continously To Manage Risks

These and other actions send a stong message for ESOP and other employee benefit plans, their fiduciaries and sponsors about the need to continuously and prudently evaluate and monitor the investment of plan assets in company stock,the analysis and decisions about whether to continue to keep and offer this stock under the plan, as well as the qualifications, credentials and conduct of the fiduciaries and others empowered to influence these decisions. The Labor Department’s statement in announcing the Parrot litigation sums up the messages from these cases. “Plan officials are required by law to manage the ESOP in a careful, prudent manner and to act solely to benefit the plan’s participants,” said Jean Ackerman, director of EBSA’s San Francisco Regional Office, which conducted the investigation. “This action underscores the department’s commitment to protect the benefits that employers promise to their employees.” Plan fiduciaries, sponsors and their management, service providers and consultants participating in these activities need to both act with care and carefully document their actions to position to defend potential challenges.

Plans, their sponsors and fiduciaries also should ensure that appropriate steps are taken in selecting the fiduciaries, management and service providers responsible for administering or overseeing the administration of their plans, the selection of vendors, and other critical details. Appropriate background checks and other credentialing should be done both at commencement and periodically. Bonding and fiduciary liability insurance should be arranged and reviewed periodically along with their activities. Documentation of these and other steps should be carefully created and preserved.

When and if a change in stock value or other event that could compromise the investment occurs, consideration should be given as to the responsibilities that such events create under ERISA. As company leaders often have dual responsibilities to both the company and the plan, it is important that the company sponsoring the plan, its management and owners learn in advance how these responsibilities impact each other so that they are aware of the issues and have a good understanding of responsibilities and options as situations evolve.

For Help or More Information

About Ms. Stamer

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Council, immediate past Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group and current Co-Chair of its Welfare Benefit Committee, Vice-Chair of the ABA TIPS Employee Benefits Committee, a council member of the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, and past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Ms. Stamer is recognized, internationally, nationally and locally for her more than 24 years of work, advocacy, education and publications on cutting edge health and managed care, employee benefit, human resources and related workforce, insurance and financial services, and health care matters.

A board certified labor and employment attorney widely known for her extensive and creative knowledge and experienced with these and other employment, employee benefit and compensation matters, Ms. Stamer continuously advises and assists employers, employee benefit plans, their sponsoring employers, fiduciaries, insurers, administrators, service providers, insurers and others to monitor and respond to evolving legal and operational requirements and to design, administer, document and defend medical and other welfare benefit, qualified and non-qualified deferred compensation and retirement, severance and other employee benefit, compensation, and human resources, management and other programs and practices tailored to the client’s human resources, employee benefits or other management goals. A primary drafter of the Bolivian Social Security pension privatization law, Ms. Stamer also works extensively with management, service provider and other clients to monitor legislative and regulatory developments and to deal with Congressional and state legislators, regulators, and enforcement officials about regulatory, investigatory or enforcement concerns.

About Solutions Law Press

Leave a Comment » | ADA, Corporate Compliance, EEOC, Employers, GINA, Human Resources, OFCCP, Retaliation | Tagged: 404, 406, defined benefit plan, Employer, ERISA, exclusive benefit, Fiduciary Responsibility, Human Resources, pension plan, plan qualification, profit sharing plan, Prudence, Retirement Plans, Tax | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

USI Advisors Will Pay $1.27 Million To Settle Charges It Violated ERISA Fee Disclosure Requirements

August 23, 2012

USI Advisors Inc. (USI) will pay $1,265,608.70 to 13 pension plans to resolve charges it violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) by failing to properly disclose 12b-1 fees it collected off of fund investments. The complaint behind the settlement reflects the commitment of the U.S Department of Labor Employee Benefit Security Administration (EBSA) to enforcing Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) fee disclosure and other requirements against service providers to employee benefit plans. With regulations tightening, the tough economy driving greater scrutiny of plan investments, expenditures and performance, and enforcement rising, plan vendors, and the employee benefit plan sponsors and fiduciaries responsible for their engagement, compensation and oversight need to ensure the adequacy of their processes for deciding and reporting compensation, as well as the qualification, selection and oversight of vendors and fiduciaries generally.

USI Settlement

An investigation by the U.S. Department of Labor’s Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) USI, fiduciary investment adviser made investments in mutual funds on behalf of ERISA-covered defined benefit plan clients and received 12b-1 fees from those funds. A 12b-1 fee is paid by a mutual fund out of fund assets to cover certain expenses. USI Advisors failed to fully disclose the receipt of the 12b-1 fees, and to use those fees for the benefit of the plans either by directly crediting the amounts to the plans or by offsetting other fees the plans would be obligated to pay the company.

“If you, as an investment adviser, are a fiduciary under ERISA with respect to plan investments in mutual funds, you cannot use your fiduciary authority to receive an additional fee or to receive compensation from third parties for your own personal account in transactions involving plan assets. We are very pleased that this settlement addresses the problems we identified with USI’s practices and restores funds to the plans and their participants,” said Phyllis C. Borzi, assistant secretary of labor for employee benefits security. “We are also very pleased that recently finalized fee disclosure regulations issued by the Labor Department will require fiduciaries like USI to be more transparent about the fees they receive when dealing with their plan clients.”

Under the terms of the settlement, USI Advisors has agreed not to provide bundled investment advisory and actuarial services to any ERISA-covered defined benefit plan client without first entering into a written agreement, contract or letter of understanding that specifies the services provided and whether the company or its affiliates will act as a fiduciary to those plans. USI Advisors also will provide to clients a description of all compensation and fees received, in any form, from any source, involving any investment or transaction related to them.

The alleged violations in this case occurred between 2004 and 2010. USI Advisors is a wholly owned subsidiary of USI Consulting Group, a Goldman Sachs Capital Partners Co.

The investigation conducted by EBSA as part of the agency’s Consultant/Adviser Project, highlights the need for employee benefit plan fiduciaries and vendors alike to properly identify and report all vendor compensation received by employee benefit plan investment advisors and other service providers in compliance with ERISA’s fee disclosure and other requirements. The Consultant/Adviser Project targets vendors and advisors to employee benefit plans for review, and where applicable, enforcement action when service providers violate ERISA’s requirements. EBSA has made misconduct by consultants, advisors and other service providers a priority as part of its broader emphasis on enforcement of ERISA’s fiduciary responsibility and reporting requirements.

Tightening Rules, Enforcement & Tough Times Driving Risks

The EBSA’s announcement of the USI settlement comes as it continues to move forward to strengthen the transparency of vendor compensation and other fiduciary regulations and enforcement. Just shortly before today’s announcement, EBSA recently clarified its guidance about how its rules affect 401(k) plan brokerage window arrangements in response to public feedback. Field Assistance Bulletin No. 2012-02R published July 30, 2012, modifies and replaces Q&A 30 of Field Assistance Bulletin No. 2012-02 (issued May 7, 2012) with a new Q&A 39.

EBSA’s final fee disclosure regulation[i] published on requires plan administrators to make to disclose specified information about retirement plan fees and expenses to participants and beneficiaries. The regulation requires plan administrators to give participants and beneficiaries more informationm about administrative and investment fees and expenses in their 401(k) plans.

EBSA issued Field Assistance Bulletin No. 2012-02, which provided guidance to its field enforcement personnel in question and answer format on the obligations of plan administrators under the fee disclosure regulation on May 7, 2012. In response to questions and concerns about statements in Question 30 regarding brokerage windows and other arrangements that enable plan participants and beneficiaries to select investments beyond those designated by the plan, EBSA issued Field Assistance Bulletin No. 2012-02 which supersedes Field Assistance Bulletin 2012-02 by modifying its provisions about brokerage windows and inviting more public comments for EBSA to use to consider further clarification of this guidance.

As did its predecessor, Field Assistance Bulletin No. 2012-02R specifies that while the fee disclosure regulation covers “brokerage windows,” “self-directed brokerage accounts,” and other similar plan arrangements that enable participants and beneficiaries to select investments beyond those designated by the plan, its coverage of brokerage windows is limited to the disclosure requirements in paragraph (c) of the regulation relating to plan-related information. The disclosure requirements for investment-related information in paragraph (d) of the regulation do not apply to brokerage windows, self-directed brokerage accounts, and similar arrangements or to any investment selected by a participant or beneficiary that is not designated by the plan (i.e., any investments made through the window, account, or arrangement).

Beyond meeting the technicalities of the fee disclosure requirements, plan sponsors, fiduciaries and vendors should also ensure that their selection, oversight, determination of compensation and other dealings with plan vendors and consultants meet the general fiduciary responsibility, prohibited transaction, bonding and other requriements of ERISA, as well as any applicable securities and tax requirements.

Through its participant fee disclosure and other stepped up fiduciary regulations and enforcement, EBSA is sending clear signals that it stands ready to investigate and take action against service providers or others that charge excessive fees, failure to adequately justify or appropriately disclose fees or other compensation from plan transactions, or other fiduciary protections of ERISA. In the face of these requirements, plan fiduciaries, sponsors, advisors and vendors should carefully review the appropriateness of compensation received or promised to plan vendors, as well as the adequacy of practices for identifying and reporting that compensation and the selection and oversight of the vendors receiving that compensation.

For Help or More Information

If you need help reviewing and updating, administering or defending your group health or other employee benefit, human resources, insurance, health care matters or related documents or practices to respond to emerging regulations, monitoring or commenting on these rules, defending your health plan or its administration, or other health or employee benefit, human resources or risk management concerns, please contact the author of this update, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Council, immediate past Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group and current Co-Chair of its Welfare Benefit Committee, Vice-Chair of the ABA TIPS Employee Benefits Committee, a council member of the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, and past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Ms. Stamer is recognized, internationally, nationally and locally for her more than 24 years of work, advocacy, education and publications on cutting edge health and managed care, employee benefit, human resources and related workforce, insurance and financial services, and health care matters.

Recognized in Who’s Who In American Professionals and both an American Bar Association (ABA) and a State Bar of Texas Fellow, Ms. Stamer serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Employee Benefits News, the editor and publisher of Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update and other Solutions Law Press Publications, and active in a multitude of other employee benefits, human resources and other professional and civic organizations. She also is a widely published author and highly regarded speaker on these matters. Her insights on these and other matters appear in the Bureau of National Affairs, Spencer Publications, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, Modern and many other national and local publications. You can learn more about Ms. Stamer and her experience, review some of her other training, speaking, publications and other resources, and registerto receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns from Ms. Stamer here.

For important information concerning this communication click here. THE FOLLOWING DISCLAIMER IS INCLUDED TO COMPLY WITH AND IN RESPONSE TO U.S. TREASURY DEPARTMENT CIRCULAR 230 REGULATIONS. ANY STATEMENTS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE NOT INTENDED OR WRITTEN BY THE WRITER TO BE USED, AND NOTHING CONTAINED HEREIN CAN BE USED BY YOU OR ANY OTHER PERSON, FOR THE PURPOSE OF (1) AVOIDING PENALTIES THAT MAY BE IMPOSED UNDER FEDERAL TAX LAW, OR (2) PROMOTING, MARKETING OR RECOMMENDING TO ANOTHER PARTY ANY TAX-RELATED TRANSACTION OR MATTER ADDRESSED HEREIN.

Other Resources

If you found this update of interest, you also may be interested in reviewing some of the other updates and publications authored by Ms. Stamer available including:

[i]See 75 FR 64910 (Oct. 20, 2010).

1 Comment | Corporate Compliance, Defined Contribution Plans, Employers, ERISA, Excise Tax, Fiduciary Responsibility, Human Resources, Income Tax, Reporting & Disclosure, Retirement Plans | Tagged: 401(k) plans, brokerage accounts, compliance, Employee Benefits, Employer, ERISA, fee disclosure regulation, Fiduciary Responsibility, Finance, Health Care Reform. Employer, Management, Plan Sponosr, Retirement Plans, Risk Managment | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

EBSA Updates Guidance On Fee Disclosure Requirements For 401(k) Plan Brokerage Window Arrangements

August 6, 2012

U.S. Department of Labor’s Employee Benefits Security Administration recently clarified its guidance about how its rules affect 401(k) plan brokerage window arrangements in response to public feedback. Field Assistance Bulletin No. 2012-02R published July 30, 2012, modifies and replaces Q&A 30 of Field Assistance Bulletin No. 2012-02 (issued May 7, 2012) with a new Q&A 39.

New Q-39 of Field Assistance Bulletin No. 2012-02R addresses when a plan offers an investment platform that includes a brokerage window, self-directed brokerage account, or similar plan arrangement but the fiduciary did not designate any of the funds on the platform or available through the brokerage window, self-directed brokerage account, or similar plan arrangement as “designated investment alternatives” under the plan, if the brokerage account platform or the brokerage window, self-directed brokerage account, or similar plan arrangement is a designated investment alternative for purposes of the regulation. According to Field Assistance Bulletin No. 2012-02R, it is not. According to the Field Assistance Bulletin, the regulation does not require that a plan have a particular number of “designated investment alternative” (DIA), and the Bulletin does not prohibit the use of a platform or a brokerage window, self-directed brokerage account, or similar plan arrangement in an individual account plan. Rather, whether an investment alternative is a DIA for purposes of the regulation depends on whether it is specifically identified as available under the plan.

However Question 39 also cautions plan administrators and fiduciaries about the need to ensure other applicable ERISA obligations are fulfilled. Field Assistance Bulletin 2012-02R notes it does not change the 404(c) regulation or the requirements for relief from fiduciary liability under section 404(c) of ERISA or address the application of ERISA’s general fiduciary requirements to SEPs or SIMPLE IRA plans. Also, fiduciaries of such plans with platforms or brokerage windows, self-directed brokerage accounts, or similar plan arrangements that enable participants and beneficiaries to select investments beyond those designated by the plan are still bound by ERISA section 404(a)’s statutory duties of prudence and loyalty to participants and beneficiaries who use the platform or the brokerage window, self-directed brokerage account, or similar plan arrangement, including taking into account the nature and quality of services provided in connection with the platform or the brokerage window, self-directed brokerage account, or similar plan arrangement. It also notes that that a 401(k) or other individual account plan fiduciary’s failure to designate investment alternatives to avoid investment disclosures under the regulation, raises questions under ERISA section 404(a)’s general statutory fiduciary duties of prudence and loyalty.

For Help or More Information

If you need help reviewing and updating, administering or defending your group health or other employee benefit, human resources, insurance, health care matters or related documents or practices to respond to emerging health plan regulations, monitoring or commenting on these rules, defending your health plan or its administration, or other health or employee benefit, human resources or risk management concerns, please contact the author of this update, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Council, immediate past Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group and current Co-Chair of its Welfare Benefit Committee, Vice-Chair of the ABA TIPS Employee Benefits Committee, a council member of the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, and past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Ms. Stamer is recognized, internationally, nationally and locally for her more than 24 years of work, advocacy, education and publications on cutting edge health and managed care, employee benefit, human resources and related workforce, insurance and financial services, and health care matters.

Recognized in Who’s Who In American Professionals and both an American Bar Association (ABA) and a State Bar of Texas Fellow, Ms. Stamer serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Employee Benefits News, the editor and publisher of Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update and other Solutions Law Press Publications, and active in a multitude of other employee benefits, human resources and other professional and civic organizations. She also is a widely published author and highly regarded speaker on these matters. Her insights on these and other matters appear in the Bureau of National Affairs, Spencer Publications, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, Modern and many other national and local publications. You can learn more about Ms. Stamer and her experience, review some of her other training, speaking, publications and other resources, and registerto receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns from Ms. Stamer here.

Other Resources

If you found this update of interest, you also may be interested in reviewing some of the other updates and publications authored by Ms. Stamer available including:

[i]See 75 FR 64910 (Oct. 20, 2010).

Plan Administrator Faces Civil & Criminal Prosecution For Allegedly Making Prohibited $3.2 Million Real Estate Investment

May 22, 2012

The U.S. Department of Labor has filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho against Matthew D. Hutcheson alleging that he violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) by imprudently investing retirement plan assets in a now-failed real estate venture. Hutcheson also faces a separate criminal indictment, which was filed in the same court on April 10, in connection with the same transaction.

The Labor Department civil complaint alleges that, toward the end of 2010, Hutcheson used more than $3.2 million representing the retirement plan savings of workers from multiple employers for his own personal expenses and in an attempt to buy an interest in the Tamarack Resort – a failed ski and golf resort in Idaho.

Labor Department officials charge this imprudent prohibited transaction has left affected retirement plans without sufficient funds to pay participants all the benefits owed to them.

The Labor Department also has filed an application for a temporary restraining order seeks to remove Hutcheson and other named defendants as fiduciaries of the affected plans, and seeks to appoint an independent fiduciary to administer the plans. In addition to Hutcheson, defendants include Hutcheson Walker Advisors LLC; Green Valley Holdings LLC; and the Retirement Security Plan and Trust, formerly known as the Pension Liquidity Plan and Trust.

Appropriate management of retirement and other employee benefit plan assets is a key obiligation of employee benefit plan investment advisors and other fiduciaries that have authority over plan assets. Plan fiduciaries generally are required by ERISA 404 to invest prudently and for the exclusive benefit of plan participants and beneficiaries. Additionally, ERISA generally prohibits plan fiduciaries from investing in or involving the plan or its assets in certain prohibited transactions or dealing with plan assets for the benefit of themselves or other third parties.

Because violations of ERISA’s fiduciary responsibility rules can create personal liability, employer and other plan sponsors, plan fiduciaries and others participating in decisions or administration of a rebate exercise care in dealing with any rebate. Many plan sponsors also may want to consider reviewing and tightening as warranted existing plan, trust, insurance policy, plan communications and other documentation to lower risks and promote desired characterization of rebates and other amounts paid into or with respect to their plans.

For Help or More Information

If you need help reviewing and updating, administering or defending your group health or other employee benefit, human resources, insurance, health care matters or related documents or practices or with other employee benefits, human resources, health care or insurance matters, please contact the author of this update, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Council, immediate past Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group and current Co-Chair of its Welfare Benefit Committee, Vice-Chair of the ABA TIPS Employee Benefits Committee, a council member of the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, and past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Ms. Stamer is recognized, internationally, nationally and locally for her more than 24 years of work, advocacy, education and publications on leading health and managed care, employee benefit, human resources and related workforce, insurance and financial services, and health care matters.

A board certified labor and employment attorney widely known for her extensive and creative knowledge and experienced with these and other employment, employee benefit and compensation matters, Ms. Stamer continuously advises and assists employers, employee benefit plans, their sponsoring employers, fiduciaries, insurers, administrators, service providers, insurers and others to monitor and respond to evolving legal and operational requirements and to design, administer, document and defend medical and other welfare benefit, qualified and non-qualified deferred compensation and retirement, severance and other employee benefit, compensation, and human resources, management and other programs and practices tailored to the client’s human resources, employee benefits or other management goals. A primary drafter of the Bolivian Social Security pension privatization law, Ms. Stamer also works extensively with management, service provider and other clients to monitor legislative and regulatory developments and to deal with Congressional and state legislators, regulators, and enforcement officials about regulatory, investigatory or enforcement concerns.

Other Resources

If you found this update of interest, you also may be interested in reviewing some of the other updates and publications authored by Ms. Stamer available including:

About Solutions Law Press

Solutions Law Press™ provides business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other resources, training and education on human resources, employee benefits, compensation, data security and privacy, health care, insurance, and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and other key operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press resources available at ww.solutionslawpress.com.

THE FOLLOWING DISCLAIMER IS INCLUDED TO COMPLY WITH AND IN RESPONSE TO U.S. TREASURY DEPARTMENT CIRCULAR 230 REGULATIONS. ANY STATEMENTS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE NOT INTENDED OR WRITTEN BY THE WRITER TO BE USED, AND NOTHING CONTAINED HEREIN CAN BE USED BY YOU OR ANY OTHER PERSON, FOR THE PURPOSE OF (1) AVOIDING PENALTIES THAT MAY BE IMPOSED UNDER FEDERAL TAX LAW, OR (2) PROMOTING, MARKETING OR RECOMMENDING TO ANOTHER PARTY ANY TAX-RELATED TRANSACTION OR MATTER ADDRESSED HEREIN.

Leave a Comment » | Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, Fiduciary Responsibility, Mental Health, Mental Health Parity, Retirement Plans, Tax | Tagged: 404, 406, ERISA, fiduciary liabiity, Fiduciary Responsibility, investment, investment advisor, plan administrator, prohibited transactions | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

New Guidance On Fiduciary Duties In Handling ACA Group Health Plan Premium Rebates Highlight Advisability Of Tightening Funding Terms & Fund Handling Practices To Manage Fiduciary Risks

December 13, 2011

Group health plan sponsors and fiduciaries need to exercise care to properly handle any premium rebates, if any, received by from insurers to comply with the medical loss ratio rules enacted as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Affordable Care Act) to avoid violating the plan assets and other fiduciary responsibility rules of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), according to Technical Release No. 2011-04, Technical Release on Fiduciary Requirements for Handling Medical Loss Ratio (MLR) Rebates (“Technical Release”) published December 2, 2011.

As amended by the Affordable Care, Section 2718 of the Public Health Service Act (PHSA) requires that health insurance issuers:

Publicly report on major categories of spending of policyholder premium dollars, such as clinical services provided to enrollees and activities that will improve health care quality;
Establishes medical loss ratio (MLR) standards for issuers; and
Requires issuers to provide rebates to enrollees when their spending for the benefit of policyholders on reimbursement for clinical services and health care quality improving activities, in relation to the premiums charged (as adjusted for taxes), is less than the MLR standards.

Employers or other sponsors that are group policyholders on insurance contracts covered by the MLR rules are likely to receive any rebates due because Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) final regulations implementing these MLR requirements published December 7, 2011 require issuers to pay any MLR rebates “to the policyholder.”

In anticipation insurers’ payment of these rebates, the Employee Benefit Security Administration (EBSA) is cautioning employers and other ERISA-covered group health plan sponsors and plan fiduciaries that premium rebates received from an insurer pursuant to these HHS MLB regulations may be plan assets required to be handled in accordance with ERISA’s plan assets and other fiduciary responsibility rules.

In the December 2, 2011 Technical Release, EBSA reminds plan sponsors and fiduciaries that premium rebates distributed pursuant to the Affordable Care Act’s MLR standards with respect to a group health plan are likely to be plan assets protected by ERISA’s fiduciary responsibility rules. Accordingly, the Technical Release cautions that plan sponsors or other parties receiving or exercising discretion over the rebated amounts that are ERISA plan assets generally should see that rebated amounts are handled in accordance with the fiduciary responsibility and trust requirements generally applicable to ERISA plan assets.

Determination whether the premium rebate is a plan asset generally requires a careful evaluation of whether the plan has a beneficial interest in the rebate and certain other factors. According to the Technical Release, a distribution such as the rebate to a group health plan will be a plan asset if the plan has a beneficial interest in the distribution under ordinary notions of property rights. While the identity of the policyholder – the employer or other plan sponsor versus a trust or plan – is one important consideration, the Technical Release warns that this is not the only factor.

The Technical Release says the fact that the employer is the policyholder or the owner of the policy would not, by itself, indicate that the employer may retain the distributions. Rather, determining who is entitled to the distribution requires careful analysis of a broad range of factors including:

The terms of the governing plan documents;
The funding sources of the policy;
The parties’ understandings and representations; and
Other relevant facts and circumstances.

If the rebate is an ERISA plan asset, employers or others receiving a premium rebate payment and others with discretion over the use and handling of the rebate should take steps to ensure that they can demonstrate the rebate is handled and expended in accordance with ERISA’s fiduciary responsibility requirements. Among other things, this means that rebated amounts should be:

Held in trust unless the plan fiduciaries verify that an exception applies;
Used only for the exclusive purpose of providing benefits to participants in the plan and their beneficiaries and defraying reasonable expenses of administering the plan;
Handled in accordance with the fiduciary responsibility provisions of ERISA section 404 and the prohibited transaction provisions of ERISA section 406;
Held in trust in accordance with ERISA section 403; and
Not allowed to inure to the benefit of any employer.

The Technical Release reminds plan sponsors and administrators that if the rebate is a plan asset, decisions about and actions taken to deposit in trust, allocate, apply, spend and other aspects of handling the plan’s portion of a rebate generally are subject to ERISA’s general standards of fiduciary conduct, prohibited transaction and trust requirements. The Technical Release also provides guidance about allocation of the rebate under certain circumstances and certain other questions that are likely to arise in connection with the receipt of a rebate. Insurers, brokers, consultants and others working with employers or other plan sponsors, administrators, or fiduciaries who may receive a rebate or otherwise involved in making funding decisions also may want to discuss the guidance and other fiduciary responsibility rules with their clients to help promote understanding and compliance.

For Help or More Information

If you need help reviewing and updating, administering or defending your group health or other employee benefit, human resources, insurance, health care matters or related documents or practices or with other employee benefits, human resources, health care or insurance matters, please contact the author of this update, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Council, immediate past Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group and current Co-Chair of its Welfare Benefit Committee, Vice-Chair of the ABA TIPS Employee Benefits Committee, a council member of the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, and past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Ms. Stamer is recognized, internationally, nationally and locally for her more than 24 years of work, advocacy, education and publications on leading health and managed care, employee benefit, human resources and related workforce, insurance and financial services, and health care matters.

A board certified labor and employment attorney widely known for her extensive and creative knowledge and experienced with these and other employment, employee benefit and compensation matters, Ms. Stamer continuously advises and assists employers, employee benefit plans, their sponsoring employers, fiduciaries, insurers, administrators, service providers, insurers and others to monitor and respond to evolving legal and operational requirements and to design, administer, document and defend medical and other welfare benefit, qualified and non-qualified deferred compensation and retirement, severance and other employee benefit, compensation, and human resources, management and other programs and practices tailored to the client’s human resources, employee benefits or other management goals. A primary drafter of the Bolivian Social Security pension privatization law, Ms. Stamer also works extensively with management, service provider and other clients to monitor legislative and regulatory developments and to deal with Congressional and state legislators, regulators, and enforcement officials about regulatory, investigatory or enforcement concerns.

Other Resources

If you found this update of interest, you also may be interested in reviewing some of the other updates and publications authored by Ms. Stamer available including:

About Solutions Law Press

Solutions Law Press™ provides business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other resources, training and education on human resources, employee benefits, compensation, data security and privacy, health care, insurance, and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and other key operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press resources available at ww.solutionslawpress.com.

Leave a Comment » | Claims Administration, Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, Health Plans, Mental Health, Mental Health Parity, Retirement Plans, Tax | Tagged: ADA, Affordable Care Act, Fiduciary Responsibility, group health plan, Health Insurance, Health Plans, HIPAA, Mental Health Benefits, Mental Health Parity, Substance Abuse Benefits | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Borzi Tells House Committee Current Fiduciary Regs Flawed; Must Fix Loopholes In Investment Advisor Definition To Protect Plans

July 28, 2011

Assistant Secretary of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) Phyllis C. Borzi testified Tuesday, July 26, 2011 to the House Committee on Education and the Workforce Subcommitte on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions that EBSA a proposed fiduciary regulation that would update EBSA regulations defining when a person is considered a “fiduciary” by reason of giving investment advice for a fee with respect to assets of an employee benefit plan or IRA will help protect employee benefit plan participants by correcting “loopholes” in a “flawed 35-year-old rule” that allow many parties providing advice about the investment of retirement plan assets to escape coverage by ERISA’s fiduciary responsibility rules. The proposed regulations and other stepped up regulations and enforcement of ERISA’s fiduciary protections by the EBSA means that plan sponsors, fiduciaries, investment advisors and other plan service providers and others involved in the sponsorship, design, and administration of an employee benefit plan need to act to manage expanding fiduciary responsibilities and exposures.

Borzi Says Loopholes & Other Flaws In Existing Regulations Hurt Plans & Their Participants

Borzi told the Committee that EBSA believes its rules about the types of advisory relationships that give rise to fiduciary status under the ERISA on the part of those providing investment advice services need to change because “technicalities” and “loopholes” in the current EBSA fiduciary regulations definition of “investment advisor” in effect since 1975 harms participants and beneficiaries by allowing many advisers to easily dodge fiduciary status.

Borzi testified that the five-part regulatory test used under the current regulations to determine when ERISA’s fiduciary requirements apply to “investment advice” and when the advisor is a “fiduciary” significantly narrowed the plain language of the ERISA statute so that much of what plainly is advice about plan investments is not treated as investment advice as fiduciary conduct under ERISA and the person paid to render that advice is not treated as an ERISA fiduciary.

Under current fiduciary regulation, an investment adviser is not treated as a fiduciary accountable for complying with ERISA’s prudence, exclusive benefit, prohibited transaction and other fiduciary responsibility safeguards if and when providing advice that meets each element of a five part test.

Under the current regulation, a person is a fiduciary under ERISA and/or the tax code with respect to their advice only if and when he or she:

Make recommendations on investing in, purchasing or selling securities or other property, or give advice as to their value;
On a regular basis;
Pursuant to a mutual understanding that the advice;
Will serve as a primary basis for investment decisions; and
Will be individualized to the particular needs of the plan.

Borzi told members of Congress this narrow definition of investment advisor exempts a wide range of parties receiving compensation for providing advice about the investment of employee benefit funds from coverage by ERISA’s fiduciary responsibility requirements. Borzi testified that the narrowness of the existing regulation opened the door to serious problems, and changes in the market since the regulation was issued in 1975 have allowed these problems to proliferate and intensify. Borzi says the narrowness of the regulation has harmed some plans, participants, and IRA holders. Research has linked adviser conflicts with underperformance. SEC reviews of certain financial sales practices may also reflect these influences. Finally, EBSA’s own enforcement experience has demonstrated specific negative effects of conflicted investment advice.

Borzi Says Proposed Regulation Would Strengthen Protections For Plans & Their Participants

Borzi said the proposed regulation published in the Federal Register on October 22, 2010 would change the rules defining a person is considered to be a “fiduciary” by reason of giving investment advice for a fee with respect to assets of an employee benefit plan or IRA by modifying the current regulation in effect since 1975 would replace the five-part test of “investment advisor” with a broader definition more in keeping with the statutory language while providing clear exceptions for conduct that should not result in fiduciary status.

According to Borzi, types of advice and recommendations that generally would trigger fiduciary status under the proposed regulations include: (1) appraisals or fairness opinions concerning the value of securities or other property; (2) recommendations as to the advisability of investing in, purchasing, holding or selling securities or other property; or (3) recommendations as to the management of securities or other property.

To be a fiduciary for performing these or other activities treated as fiduciary investment advice, Borzi explained that a person engaging in one of these activities must receive a fee and also meet at least one of the following four conditions:

Represent to a plan, participant or beneficiary that the individual is acting as an ERISA fiduciary;
Already be an ERISA fiduciary to the plan by virtue of having any control over the management or disposition of plan assets, or by having discretionary authority over the administration of the plan;
Be an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940; or
Provide the advice pursuant to an agreement or understanding that the advice may be considered in connection with investment or management decisions with respect to plan assets and will be individualized to the needs of the plan.

At the same time, Borzi testified that the proposed regulation recognizes that activities by certain persons should not result in fiduciary status. Specifically, these are:

Persons who do not represent themselves to be ERISA fiduciaries, and who make it clear to the plan that they are acting for a purchaser/seller on the opposite side of the transaction from the plan rather than providing impartial advice;
Persons who provide general financial/investment information, such as recommendations on asset allocation to 401(k) participants under existing Departmental guidance on investment education;
Persons who market investment option platforms to 401(k) plan fiduciaries on a non-individualized basis and disclose in writing that they are not providing impartial advice; and
Appraisers who provide investment values to plans to use only for reporting their assets to the DOL and IRS.
EBSA Still Working To Address Expressed Concerns

The proposed regulation has prompted a large volume of comments and a vigorous debate. Borzi testified that the EBSA is working hard to hear and consider every stakeholder concern and shared some examples of how EBSA is considering addressing certain of these concerns. Borzi said EBSA is taking multiple steps in its effort to respond to these and other concerns in its efforts to finalize the regulation including:

Borzi told the Committee EBSA is working to better understand how specific compensation arrangements would be affected by the proposed rule and whether clarifications of existing prohibited transactions exemptions would be appropriate. Borzi said EBSA has already begun to issue subregulatory guidance describing some of these clarifications and will continue to do so as necessary as it completes its analysis.

Borzi also said that as EBSA further develops its thinking in this rulemaking, EBSA is paying special attention to the two primary exceptions to fiduciary status under the proposed rule: (1) clarifying the difference between investment education that does not give rise to fiduciary status and fiduciary investment advice; and (2) clarifying the scope of the so-called “sellers’ exception” under which sales activity is not fiduciary advice. In both cases, Borzi said EBSA intends to analyze and address the comments and concerns that were raised during our extensive public comment period.

Finally, Borzi said EBSA is exploring a range of appropriate regulatory options for moving forward, taking into consideration public comments submitted for the record, EBSA’s economic analysis, and relevant academic research. In so doing, Borzi told the Committee EBSA is aiming to address conflicted investment advice while not unnecessarily disrupting existing compensation practices or business models.

Plan Sponsors, Fiduciaries, Service Providers Should Prepare For Tighter Rules While Continuing To Provide Input To EBSA

The proposed changes to the definition of investment advisor is one of many steps that EBSA is taking to tighten the regulations implementing ERISA’s fiduciary requirements and to enforce the protections of ERISA. The proposal to expand the conditions that providing investment advice regarding retirement plan assets will trigger the fiduciary protections of ERISA is designed to expand the reach of those regulations. Service providers involved in providing these or other related services generally will want to review and update their processes, documentation and training to manage new exposures likely to arise from these proposed regulations, while continuing to share feedback to EBSA and other rulemakers.

Service providers are not the only parties that need to update practices and provide input about these rules. Plan sponsors, fiduciaries, service providers, participants and beneficiaries also are impacted. Employers and other plan sponsors, fiduciaries and others need to anticipate and respond effectively to the inevitable efforts by providers of investment advice and other services to avoid or shift liability. Parties securing or relying on advice or services about investments or other responsibilities should:

Carefully, prudently conduct a documented investigation and critical analysis of existing and proposed advisors and other service providers credentials, analysis, performance, contract, recommendations and other conduct;
Carefully review contracts and other materials and secure appropriate constractual and other safeguards;
Require indemnification, insurance and other protections;
Ensure that appropriate action is taken to appoint parties intended to perform fiduciary advisory or other services to manage risks
Secure and maintain appropriate fiduciary and other liability insurance coverage;
Carefully conduct an appropriate, well-documented prudent review of performance, credentials and other relevant factors on a regular basis to preserve ongoing evidence of prudence; and
Other appropriate safeguards to manage risks and liabilities.

To help guard and position themselves to defend against fiduciary exposures plan sponsors, fiduciaries, service providers and others involved in the administration of health or other employee benefit plans should seek the advice of legal counsel with appropriate experience with employee benefit and other related matters to develop an understanding of ERISA and other laws and the duties and liabilities that these rules may create for their organizations and themselves personally. For additional tips and information about managing these risks, see here.

For Help With These Or Other Risk Management Matters

If you need assistance in auditing or assessing, updating or defending your wage and hour or with other labor and employment, employee benefit, compensation or internal controls practices, please contact the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer here or at (469)767-8872.

Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, management attorney and consultant Ms. Stamer is nationally and internationally recognized for more than 23 years of work helping employers; employee benefit plans and their sponsors, administrators, fiduciaries; employee leasing, recruiting, staffing and other professional employment organizations; and others design, administer and defend innovative workforce, compensation, employee benefit and management policies and practices. Her experience includes extensive work helping employers implement, audit, manage and defend wage and hour and other workforce and internal controls policies, procedures and actions. The Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Committee, a Council Representative on the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, Government Affairs Committee Legislative Chair for the Dallas Human Resources Management Association, and past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Ms. Stamer works, publishes and speaks extensively on wage and hour, worker classification and other human resources and workforce, employee benefits, compensation, internal controls and related matters. She also is recognized for her publications, industry leadership, workshops and presentations on these and other human resources concerns and regularly speaks and conducts training on these matters. Her insights on these and other matters appear in the Bureau of National Affairs, Spencer Publications, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other national and local publications. For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience or to access other publications by Ms. Stamer see here or contact Ms. Stamer directly.

About Solutions Law Press

Leave a Comment » | Bankruptcy, Corporate Compliance, Defined Benefit Plans, Defined Contribution Plans, Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, Fiduciary Responsibility, Health Plans, Human Resources, Insurance, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Professional Liability, Reporting & Disclosure, Restructuring, Retirement Plans, Risk Management, Union | Tagged: 404, Director Liability, embezzlement, ERISA, Fiduciary, Fiduciary Responsibility, Officer Liability, Officers & Directors Liability, Owner Liability, Plan Sponsor Liability, Service Provider Liability, tpa | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Plan Sponsors. Their Owners & Management & Others Risk Personal Liability If Others Defraud Plans or Mismanage Employee Benefit Plan Responsibilities

April 4, 2011

Mitigate Risk With Appropriate Prevention, Monitoring & Response

Executives, board members, and other business leaders of companies providing health, 401(k) or other employee benefits under plans regulated by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA) should heed a series of recent fiduciary liability settlement orders and lawsuits of the U.S. Department of Labor (Labor Department) as important reminders of the potential personal liability exposures executives can may face if their company’s benefit programs are not appropriately maintained and administered.

Recent Enforcement Actions, Changing Regulations Highlight Fiduciary Risks

On March 29, 2011, the Labor Department sued the owner of Eyeglass Factory, Inc. (EGF), Stephen Schaffer, for breach of fiduciary duties under ERISA by failing to ensure that EGF timely forwarded health plan contributions collected from employees to pay health plan contributions to the plan and failing to ensure that he and other plan fiduciaries and service providers were bonded in accordance with ERISA’s fidelity bond requirements.[i] The Labor Department suit charges that from July 1, 2000 to October 1, 2000, Schaffer and EGF withheld and failed to forward to the health plan contributions deducted from employee pay for health insurance coverage and contributions made to the flexible benefit plan sponsored by EGF from January 1, 2000 to December 4, 2000. The employees’ paycheck withholdings were commingled with the company’s general assets and used for its general operating expenses. The Labor Department is asking the court to order that Schaffer and other defendants make restitution to the plan for the misapplied contributions, including lost opportunity costs, to correct prohibited transactions and to appoint an independent fiduciary to oversee the plans once Schaffer is removed as the plan fiduciary.

The Schaffer suit follows the Labor Department’s successful prosecution of a breach of fiduciary duty action against Larry Lauterback, the president and former owner of a Minnesota Cement Company, for his role in allowing his construction company to commingle with company assets and divert to company use employee health and 401(k) contributions withheld from employee’s pay. In Solis v. Larry Lauterback, [ii] the District Court ordered Lauterback to restore $17,273.18 in unremitted employee contributions and lost opportunity costs to the company’s health and dental plan, and $747.20 in unremitted employee contributions to the company’s 401(k) plan and enjoins Lauterback from serving or acting as a fiduciary or service provider to any employee benefit plan for three years.. The order followed the entry of a consent judgment against Lauterback and the plan sponsor, Slate Cement, Inc., for failure to remit employee contributions, failure to forward employee contributions to medical and dental providers, co-mingling employee contributions of the general assets and using those assets for company operations.

The Schaffer and Lauterback actions taken in March, 2011 are only the most recent in a series of enforcement actions taken against business executives, board members, plan vendors and others for their role in committing or failing to take prudent steps to prevent or redress alleged misconduct relating to the maintenance, administration and funding of various employee benefit programs regulated by ERISA. In recent months and years, the Labor Department has filed several lawsuits against business executives and businesses for alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. While misuse of employee contributions by plan sponsors is a common focus of many of these actions, plan sponsors, plan service providers and members of their management with discretionary authority or responsibility over plan assets or administration or the election of those appointed to administer those responsibilities often arise out of the failure or these individuals to take prudent steps to prevent, monitor or address misconduct by other plan fiduciaries or service providers.[iii]

Plan sponsors, fiduciaries, service providers and their management should anticipate these risks and their attendant responsibilities will continue to rise as the Labor Department moves forward to adopt and implement revisions and enhancements to its fiduciary regulations such as those provided for in the new “Interim Final Regulation Relating to Improved Fee Disclosure for Pension Plans” scheduled to take effect in July, 2011 and the Proposed Regulation on the “Definition of the Term Fiduciary” published by the Labor Department in July and October, 2010 respectively.

Meanwhile, the Labor Department enforcement activities highlight the longstanding and ongoing policy of aggressive investigation and enforcement of alleged misconduct by companies, company officials, and service providers in connection with the maintenance, administration and funding of ERISA-regulated employee benefit plans. In its Fiscal Year 2010, the Labor Department closed 3,112 civil investigations, of which 2,301 (73.94%) resulted in monetary recoveries or other corrective action. The Labor Department referred 264 cases for civil litigation and filed 128 civil lawsuits. Meanwhile on the criminal side, the Labor Department closed 281 criminal investigations and obtained indictments against 96 people.

In addition to prosecutions brought by the Labor Department, companies and individuals that exercise discretion and control of the administration or funding of employee benefit plans regulated by ERISA also may be sued personally by participants and beneficiaries for breach of fiduciary under ERISA. A review of the Labor Department’s enforcement record and existing precedent makes clear that where the Labor Department perceives that a plan sponsor or its management fails to take appropriate steps to protect plan participants, the Labor Department will aggressively pursue enforcement regardless of the size of the plan sponsor or its plan, or the business hardships that the plan sponsor may be facing.

Plan Sponsors, Fiduciaries, Service Providers & Their Management Should Act To Manage Exposures

Given these exposures, businesses providing employee benefits to employees or dependents, as well as members of management participating in, or having responsibility to oversee or influence decisions concerning the establishment, maintenance, funding, and administration of their organization’s employee benefit programs need a clear understanding of their responsibilities with respect to such programs, the steps that they should take to demonstrate their fulfillment of these responsibilities, and their other options for preventing or mitigating their otherwise applicable fiduciary risks.

To help guard and position themselves to defend against these and other exposures, plan sponsors, fiduciaries, service providers and others involved in the administration of health or other employee benefit plans should seek the advice of legal counsel with appropriate experience with employee benefit and other related matters to develop an understanding of ERISA and other laws and the duties and liabilities that these rules may create for their organizations and themselves personally. For additional tips and information about managing these risks, see here.

For Help With These Or Other Risk Management Matters

About Solutions Law Press

[i] Chao v. Stephen Schaffer, the Eyeglass Factory, Inc., No O2-CV-60197, as announced in EBSA Release No. 11-341-CHI (March 29, 2011).

[ii] Solis v. Larry Lauterback, as announced in EBSA Release No 11-322-CHI (March 14, 2011).

[iii] See, e.g. Chao v. Associated Plan Administrators, as announced in EBSA Release No. 07-1265-BOS/BOS 2007-298 (October 16, 2007); Chao v. Starkey, as announced in EBSA Release No. 05-747-ATL (May 2, 2005); Chao v. Perry., as announced in EBSA Release BOS 2002-054 (March 21, 2002); Chao v. Mabry, as announced in EBSA Release No. 160 (March 20, 2002). See also, e.g., Baker v. Kingsley, 2006 WL 2027606 (N.D.Ill.2007); In Re Enron Corp Securities Derivative & “ERISA” Litigation, 284 F.Supp. 511 (S.D.Tex. 2003); Varity Corp. v. Howe, 516 U.S. 489 (1996); Brink v. DeLesio, 496 F. Supp. 1350 (D.Md. 1980).

Defined Contribution Plans Investing In Publically Traded Employer Securities Face New Requirements

May 19, 2010

Employer and other sponsors, fiduciaries and administrators of 401(k) and other defined contribution pension plans that hold publically traded employer securities should review and update their plan documentation, communications and practices in response to new Internal Revenue Service (IRS) final regulations implementing new investment diversification requirements for these programs under Internal Revenue Code (Code) § 401(a)(35) and Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) § 204(j), as amended by the Pension Protection Act of 2006.

The new regulations for defined contribution plans investing in publically traded employer securities took effect immediately today (May 19, 2010) upon their publication here in the Federal Register.

Covered defined contribution plans generally will be required to comply with these new regulations beginning by the first plan year beginning after December 31, 2010 to maintain qualified status under Code § 401(a) and to comply with ERISA.

If you need help reviewing or responding to these new regulations or addressing other employee benefit, compensation or labor and employment concerns, contact the author of this update, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer at (469) 767-8872 or here

About Ms. Stamer

Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, management attorney and consultant Ms. Stamer is nationally and internationally recognized for more than 23 years of work helping businesses manage labor and employment, employee benefits, performance management and discipline, compliance and internal controls, risk management, and public policy matters including significant, cutting edge experience advising employer and other health plan sponsors, fiduciaries, insurers, administrators and others design, administer, and defend defensible, cost-effective health and other employee benefit programs.

The Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Committee, a Council Representative on the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, Government Affairs Committee Legislative Chair for the Dallas Human Resources Management Association, past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, and the editor and publisher of Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update and other Solutions Law Press Publications, Ms. Stamer also is recognized for her publications, industry leadership, workshops and presentations on these and other health industry and human resources concerns. She regularly speaks and conducts training for the ABA, Institute of Internal Auditors, Society for Professional Benefits Administrators, Southwest Benefits Association and many other organizations. Publishers of her many highly regarded writings on health industry and human resources matters include the Bureau of National Affairs, Aspen Publishers, ABA, AHLA, Aspen Publishers, Schneider Publications, Spencer Publications, World At Work, SHRM, HCCA, State Bar of Texas, Business Insurance, James Publishing and many others. You can review other highlights of Ms. Stamer’s experience here. Her insights on these and other matters appear in Managed Care Executive, Modern Health Care, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, MDNews, Kentucky Physician, and many other national and local publications.

If you need help with human resources or other management, concerns, wish to ask about compliance, risk management or training, or need legal representation on other matters please contact Cynthia Marcotte Stamer here or (469)767-8872.

Other Recent Updates and Resources

If you found this information of interest, you also may be interested in reviewing other updates and publications by Ms. Stamer including:

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail – by creating or updating your profile here or e-mailing this information here or registering to receive our Solutions Law Press distributions here. For important information about this communication click here. If you do not wish to receive these updates in the future, send an e-mail with the word “Remove” in the Subject to here.

Leave a Comment » | Corporate Compliance, Employee Benefits, Employers, ERISA, Fiduciary Responsibility, Retirement Plans, Uncategorized | Tagged: 401(k) Plan, defined contribution plan, employer securities, ERISA, Fiduciary Responsibility, Retirement Plans | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

New IRS Guidance On ESOP Investment Diversification Reminder To Tighten Compliance, Risk Management

USI Advisors Will Pay $1.27 Million To Settle Charges It Violated ERISA Fee Disclosure Requirements

EBSA Updates Guidance On Fee Disclosure Requirements For 401(k) Plan Brokerage Window Arrangements

Plan Administrator Faces Civil & Criminal Prosecution For Allegedly Making Prohibited $3.2 Million Real Estate Investment

Defined Contribution Plans Investing In Publically Traded Employer Securities Face New Requirements

Email Subscription

Pages

Recent Posts

Archives

Share this blog

Blogroll

Solutions Law

Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update

Follow “”