Leaderboard

To avoid any potential limitations imposed by the plan she could take a distribution and rollover to an IRA where she then has complete control over where it goes upon her death.

I essentially agree with Peter but with a twist. It seems that the plan administrator/fiduciary would make a decision as to the "beneficiaries" under the terms of the Plan, and memorialize its reasoning. I have seen where, though ERISA preempts state law, the plan would apply state law where a beneficiary has predeceased the participant and the plan does not have any controlling provisions. That is, what would state law require if a will named the 3 children as beneficiaries and 1 predeceased the testator without any other designations (e.g., per stirpes or per capita)? The ability to do this fell under the committee's interpretive discretion (that the plan provided for). The plan would then provide this decision to the parties, including anyone who might be a contesting party. The plan should provide all of the parties (including any contesting parties) with the plan's claims procedures and let the parties know that if anyone disagrees with the decision they can pursue the claim through the plan’s administrative claims procedures. After a decision is rendered on any contesting appeal by the plan fiduciary, if one or more of the contesting parties want to appeal the decision further, then the plan can file an interpleader action. Be careful in the way the interpleader is styled because my recollection is that one way may be more difficult than another (I think you want to interplead the parties and not the funds, but you should consult a litigator on which method may be better given your circumstances. Although, if the funds are interpleaded, the court likely will dismiss the plan from the case). The interpleader may be the way to go especially if there are significant funds at issue. If interpleaded, the court would then determine the entitlement of the competing claimants. Because the administrative process would have been exhausted, a court could apply the deferential abuse of discretion standard of review to the plan's decision. This could allow a quicker resolution if the parties see that the court likely will defer to the plan's decision or simply because there is a possibility of an interpleader. Note that a settlement can be entered into between the competing claimants that may be different from what the plan determined. If the plan agrees to the settlement, it needs to make sure it gets a release from all the competing claimants. Hopefully, your plan says how these expenses are handled but if the funds are interpleaded, I think the costs should come from the funds (confirm). Just my thoughts so DO NOT take my ramblings as advice....

Mandatory disaggregation, so having separate vesting schedules for union/non-union should not present any BRF issues.

Generally each vesting schedule is a benefit, right, or feature that would be subject to coverage testing. So you may have it, if you pass. (And consider how union employees typically are considered in coverage testing)

Looks to me like a multiple employer plan where each company will have to pass the non discrimination testing. Brother and sister ownership doesn’t get attributed between themselves. For adult children the attribution would only go to the parent or child that owns more than 50% of the entity. That’s not the case either way here. I don’t see any attribution between A or B. So I’m not sure there’s much reason for these businesses to sign on to the same plans. What’s the advantage?

Yes it can exclude a class (like a location or job category) and yes it must pass coverage.

You have a lapsed beneficiary of a pension plan, presumable ERISA qualified. The options in an ERISA qualified plan are: (i) there would be an Order of precedence in the Plan documents that will award the decedent's share to his wife, children, parents, siblings, estate, etc; or, (ii) the beneficiary designation form will condition receipt of his share by saying "if he survives the settlor, and if he doesn't survive the settlor, then the decedent's share passes to the other members of the class to which he was a member, that is the other two children in this case; or, (iii) the share of the deceased beneficiary reverts back to the Plan. In my experience, absolute silence on the subject is rare. If the annuity is ERISA qualified, and if ERISA does not address the situation, or if the annuity is not ERISA qualified, then state law will apply (and state law will not/cannot be preempted by ERISA). See my attached Memo re: terminable interests. But see Boggs v. Boggs - at https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/520/833/#tab-opinion-1960143 where the Supreme Court held that ERISA preempts state community-property law allowing a non-participant spouse to transfer by a testamentary instrument an interest in undistributed pension plan benefits. That would seem to strip the deceased party in the CuseFan example, and his heirs and next of kin would have no claim to the lapsed 1/3rd share, and the deceased party's share would pass to the other two children. Buy on the other hand we have FERS and OPM and 5 CFR 838.237(b)(3) and the attached Memo demonstrating how another Federal Law deals with this situation. And here is how TSP handles a deceased beneficiary - https://www.tsp.gov/for-beneficiaries/determining-beneficiaries/ Not the comment: "A will, prenuptial agreement, separation agreement, property settlement agreement, or court order will not override either a beneficiary designation or the order of precedence." At the end of the day it is difficult to understand how the Plan passed muster without addressing this matter. David TERMINABLE INTEREST DEFINED BENEFIT PLANS REV'D 03-16-24.pdf OWNERSHIP INTEREST 5 CFR 838.237(b)(3).pdf

CuseFan, I’m with you; if the plan is ERISA-governed and the plan’s governing documents state the administrator’s discretionary power to interpret the plan, the administrator may use that discretion. Consider whether the plan’s administrator or claims administrator should, preferably before deciding, write a memo to explain the legal reasoning for its interpretation. Courts defer to reasoning, but not to an absence of reasoning. If there is a claimant beyond the remaining named beneficiaries, be punctilious about following ERISA § 503 and the plan’s claims procedure. This is not advice to anyone.