MoJo

Nope. If it isn't regulatorily required, we wouldn't do it (nor would I, if I were in private practice). ANYTHING over and above what is actually required becomes a potential issue - and possibly one of litigation/liability. Keep the "educational" stuff separate from the "regulatorily required" stuff. And for the record, we use Relius - but have them customize our document and SPD - so we do "control" the content.

The lawyer in me comes out with questions like this. First, it is NOT required - and that probably is the biggest reason I have for NOT including that language in a "plan document." It's inclusion would then set an expectation, if not an obligation on the part of the plan sponsor and service providers dealing with that data, which may, or may not, be consistent with what they are actually doing - at any given point in time. This is a huge issue among recordkeepers (one of which I work for) and it is extremely fluid. I can tell you that recordkeepers routinely share their knowledge of "threats" but do NOT share their approaches to safe-guarding data (and to do so would itself be a data security breach). We keep our data security protocols very very close to the vest, and are constantly reviewing them and changing them - lest the bad guys get wise and figure out how to subvert the protections. Second, while educating participants on general identity theft issues, might not the inclusion of a discussion about the risks in an SPD prompt a pull back from participation? That could actually be a bigger (retirement readiness) risk than the risk of an individual's account being hacked or data breached. In any event, most reputable service providers would make a participant whole for the loss of an account balance due to nefarious activity (provided the participant wasn't negligent themselves - like posting their identifying info online). We DO educate our plan sponsors on the risks, provide them with various assurances, AND provide a "promise" to plan participants that if they aren't negligent (there is a laundry list of things they must do or must not do to "comply"), that we will make them whole. So far, we've not seen much in the way of service providers being "hacked" but we have seen data from other hacks (Target, etc.) used to attempt to claim to be a participant and request a distribution ACH'd to a newly established account (from which it immediately moves off-shore). Protocols exist to identify and intercede there as well.

ERISA geeks never retire, they just superannuate indefinitely!

Just thinking out loud here - but if they are employees of the management company (and the common law test may actually so show), what compensation do they have from THAT employer that allows them to participate in THAT employer's plan?

I believe EPCRS provides that in the case of a distribution without a distributable event (what you have here), you ask for it back. If they send it back, put back in their account. If they don't, and it's money they would have been able to receive with a distributable event, the plan is considered good to go. No further action necessary. However, I don't believe that is rolloverable (at least to the best of my recollection) so the 1099 has to indicate as such, the participant now has an excess contribution into their IRA, with the 6% excise tax (each and every year until it is corrected).

I think I might still have a stockpile of "old" Coke.... Now if II can remember (see the "When I'm 64" thread...) where I buried it....

I don't think anybody here can answer the question - as a lot of factors weigh in on that determination. Suffice it to say that a DRO (it's only a QDRO when the plan administrator says it is) can not force the plan to do something it's terms, or applicable law says it can't do. Often once a benefit election is made and the benefit is being paid, it is irrevocable - and no DRO can make it revocable. The recourse - if any available -would be against the participant (or their estate) . Likewise, once a benefit "expires" (often the result of the death of the recipient), it can't be resurrected. Best bet is to talk to an attorney familiar with governmental plans in NY, if not the NYCERS plan itself.

I'm not sure why that would be needed. Let the members link to their LinkedIn page is necessary - pr expand their profile. We tend to know who does what on this forum based on the questions and answers. Let's not *goober* up the thought leadership with sales. In my career, the ability to "sell" often doesn't correlate with expertise....

Hmmm. Well, not there yet, but it's only a number of months away... 😞 Just hoping I'm still needed and fed!

I believe NYCERS is a governmental plan - which may not have spousal consent in it. Certainly not required under Federal law. Can't say about NY law, or plan provisions....

Don't know, but it rhymes with "door" and "evermore" - in the song.....

A plan can be "qualified" without the documents containing all necessary amendments, where the time to amend is deferred ither statutorily or regulatorily. Keep in mind that a merged plan still exists, and will be amended (timely) when the combined plan is amended.

In a true merger, the plan does in fact survive. Both plans continue in existence in the form of the merged plan, and become one. The filing of a final 5500 for one doesn't mean it has ceased to exist - it's just to report on the transaction and zero out the balance "reportable" to the DOL each year.

Certainly, the absence of a QDRO means the plan need do nothing - unless they have knowledge that a DRO may be forthcoming (and based on the Sep Agr it appears that one won't be). However, naming the husband as beneficiary *may* no longer be effective, as in some jurisdictions (and per some plan documents), a divorce invalidates a bene form naming the spouse (nee "former spouse") as the bene. It would be wise to guide the participant to take stock of their affairs and update the bene form ASAP to give effect to their wishes. Even if they want the ex to get the benefits (it's been known to happen), the current ben form may still be ineffective unless revised post-divorce again naming him as the bene. Otherwise, the default per the plan documents (and/or state law) will govern, and the benefits may go elsewhere.

We're in the same boat as a major modifier of Relius's document. Actually, the document has been ready for some time. The document "system" seems to be slipping -- and every time we get a new version to test, we uncover that the last round of "fixes" broke other things that weren't broken before.... We have plans to shop this service to see what else is out there once we catch our breath.... Other than FTW, any suggestions?(FTW is of course, on the list already)?

We routinely receive separation agreements in lieu of a DRO - and put it through the same process as a DRO. Some (very few) actually meet the criteria for it to be a "Q"DRO. Start with, was the Separation Agreement incorporated into an order of the court? If not, sorry, it's not an "O"rder even making it a DR"O" and that is a big part of the problem we find with these things. Other issues may also prevent if from being a DRO. One has to look at it in it's entirety (including reading who gets the Weber grill and custody of Scruffy the pet dog....) 😁

Ditto for us as well. There was a cutoff - any new business past that cutoff isn't charged for the restatement. But then again, we don't charge for incoming plan documents - so new business clients get a double freebie...

Sorry - but I'm going to get on my soapbox on this one. First, if *anyone* suggests that hiring another fiduciary relieves other fiduciaries of liability, RUN. Don't walk. Don't ask questions. Just get the heck out of there. The "co-fiduciary" liability thing is real, and the duty to monitor other fiduciaries is another fiduciary obligation that most plan sponsor centered fiduciaries do not understand. While a 3(38) is an "exception" to some extent that does relieve other fiduciaries of the liability for investment decision making, those fiduciaries still have the obligation of prudently hiring, prudently monitoring, and prudently firing when appropriate. That, in my (attorney-0litigious) mind means understanding their process, and ensuring they are following that process, and determining that that process is an appropriate process for their plan and it's participants/beneficiaries. I would suggest entering into the agreement the OP posited itself would be a breach of their fiduciary duties. It does, as Bill suggest, appear at least partially like it is a 3(21) agreement. Lots of questions about the agreement. Even more questions about the plan sponsor/fiduciaries to truly understand what they are getting into.... OK. Soapbox put away (for now).

We do to, but we use Docusign - and the time between receipt and signing is often less than a minute... So it must have been a very, very quick review! 😁

The issue of unauthorized practice of law has been "settled" (much to the dismay of bar associations) so I'm not aware of the requirement that an attorney create the document for any provider. I looked into doing a doc for a client from FTW a few years ago, and I don't recall seeing anything that would prohibit it (but I am an attorney - but they didn't know that at the time). In this day and age, most providers provide a document - as do most TPAs. Not sure why they wouldn't (it can be a source of revenue if they charge for restatements and amendments). Where I work, you get the first one free at transition to us, and then pay for amendments and restatements thereafter. We use a heavily modified Relius document (it's really our own as it's been significantly customized). Every other provider I've worked for had a document and preferred clients use it - to make ops run more smoothly (knowing the document, where to find provisions/answers when necessary)/

Some of them do - and will allow a one-time purchase by an interested parties. Many attorneys do this for their few clients who need a document. The problem is still "maintenance." Who is going to keep track of required amendments? How will other amendments be handled? To the OP - if a service provider doesn't provide document services, find another service provider. And as for using the prior's document, it's probably copyrighted, and there may be contractual issues as well as the issues posted by others.

Small balance accounts - especially a large number of them - impacts pricing. No service provider wants small balance accounts unlikely to grow significantly in a relatively short period of time. Our service agreement specifically includes an out to reprice if plan demographics shift.

Very real world scenarios that we are currently dealing with. We've taken the position that it is an "overpayment" and you need to ask for the money back. There is a correction for when an overpayment occurs - but it is based on money the participant would have gotten eventually anyway. Here, they weren't vested, and may never become vested, so what is the correction? This could be the case often where the employer lays off people, but hires different people to fill the slots. The act doesn't say you have "rehire" to take advantage of the relief - only that your employment level be greater than 80% of what it was....

I agree completely, Peter - but the capabilities of the r/k are a key component of the fiduciaries criteria in selecting the r/k in the first place. I would have assumed Principal reviewed the plan documents before taking it on, and probably provided the documents themselves. We have a complete plan design review with a new client during the transition, and hash out "best practices" at that time, and adjust the documents accordingly (restating them, in most cases. to our volume submitter docs). Bad on Principal (they are not a schlock provider) and should have ensured they could do what the plan requires. I'm guessing, there is more to this story - and maybe the employee (Principal's) is miscommunicating....

I think you've done the right thing in asking for more info. The approach we'd take in that case is, "is the amount still due and payable?" If no, then it simply isn't an imminent/significant financial "need." If yes, we'd probably still question why such an old bill is outstanding and go from their.