It is hard to imagine how a new, separate, distinct duty to disclose inside information about public companies under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, along with the specter of ERISA fiduciaries becoming a new source of “material” information about public companies, would not cause more harm than good, say H. Douglas Hinson and Emily Costin of Alston & Bird LLP, in an article published on Law360.
To read the full article, please click here.
Alston & Bird issued an advisory that discusses the Supreme Court’s recent decision in M&G Polymers v. Tackett, which addressed whether collectively bargained retiree medical benefits were vested for life.
Prior to M&G Polymers, federal circuits were split over how to interpret collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) regarding whether retiree medical benefits are vested after the expiration of the CBA. In a unanimous ruling (with a concurrence by Justice Ginsburg, joined by 3 other Justices), the Supreme Court overturned the Sixth Circuit’s Yard-Man presumption that such [...] Read more
Following recent financial news regarding changes at the PIMCO Total Return Fund, Alston & Bird’s Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Group summarizes the technical requirements and recommended procedures in making changes to your retirement plan’s investment lineup.
From time to time, fiduciary committees need to consider whether to make a change in the investment alternatives available in their retirement plans. Typically in 401(k) and 403(b) plans and sometimes in other defined contribution plans, the fiduciary committee selects the investment options or funds available [...] Read more
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently issued an important decision in one of the many cases alleging that financial services companies breached fiduciary duties under ERISA by charging allegedly excessive fees. This type of litigation has grown more prevalent in recent years. However, most appellate courts, including now the Third Circuit, have found these claims unmeritorious.
In Santomenno v. John Hancock Life Insurance Company, No. 13–3467, 2014 WL 4783665 (3d Cir. Sept. 26, 2014), the plaintiffs argued that, as a service provider to their 401(k) plan, John Hancock had [...] Read more
On September 4, 2014, Pat DiCarlo was quoted in an article in PLANSPONSOR, in which he discussed the growing number of claims for pension benefits that were paid or rolled over decades ago by former employees who either do not recall receiving or rolling over their benefits or who are questioning the amount of benefits they received.
To read the article, entitled “Decades-Old DB Benefit Payments Being Questioned,” click here.
In the first published decision of its kind, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey recently determined that that contribution surcharges imposed when a multiemployer pension fund enters critical status should not be counted in calculating an employer’s withdrawal liability. Bd. of Trustees of IBT Local 863 Pension Fund v. C&S Wholesale Grocers Inc./Woodbridge Logistics LLC, — F. Supp. 2d —, No. 12-7823, 2014 WL 1687141 (D.N.J. Mar. 19, 2014). The case is a departure from how many funds calculate withdrawal liability, and it opens the doorway for new challenges [...] Read more
This advisory addresses an important update regarding additional steps that plan administrators must take, in order to avoid penalties under the Internal Revenue Code, if they failed to timely file the Form 5500 series of annual reports. This advisory also includes a critical reminder concerning the timing of fee disclosures regarding qualified retirement plans.
To read the full text of the advisory, please click here. [...] Read more
In 2013 alone, at least five lawsuits were filed challenging the application of the church plan exemption to pension plans sponsored by major nonprofit hospital systems that are connected with the Roman Catholic Church. This article addresses the issues raised by those lawsuits, recent decisions in those cases, and the potential impact of these lawsuits on the controversial church plan exemption.
To read the complete article, please click here.
On June 25, 2014, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer. In a unanimous decision, the Court overruled the Sixth Circuit and every other circuit to address the issue, by holding that fiduciaries of employee stock ownership plans (ESOPs) are not entitled to a presumption of prudence with regard to investments in employer securities. However, notwithstanding the rejection of the presumption of prudence, the Supreme Court provided clear guidance to the lower courts, instructing them to carefully consider the plausibility of claims alleging breach of the fiduciary [...] Read more
In the ERISA world, the Supreme Court has already granted a petition for certiorari of a Sixth Circuit case in order to consider one significant “presumption” this term – when it agreed to evaluate whether the Moench “presumption of prudence” regarding employer stock is a proper legal standard for evaluating breach of fiduciary duty claims. However, on May 5, the high court granted a petition for certiorari of yet another Sixth Circuit case regarding yet another significant presumption – this time, the judicially-crafted presumption that retiree health benefits [...] Read more