david rigby

http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/Publications/qdros.html Do Q&As 2-11 to 2-13 imply that 18 months is "long enough" to expect that a DRO will be submitted? Is Fidelity imposing a much longer (forever?) holding period? If so, is there justification for doing so?

Data as of 31-DEC-09 Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 5.33 5.33 Aa 5.54 5.44 5.49 A 5.86 5.82 5.84 Baa 6.31 6.47 6.39 Avg 5.90 5.76 5.84 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 1.00 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 2.67 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 4.28 FYI, I also monitored these rates for every business day since December 15. No spikes, very little fluctuation.

Link to court decision: http://legacy.plansponsor.com/uploadfiles/...hamdivorces.pdf

IMHO, the corrected DOB produces an experience loss, at 1/1/2010. No impact on 2009. No impact on 2009 AFTAP and/or distributions. If the sponsor does not want any restrictions to apply at 4/1/2010, a 2010 AFTAP prior to the date is needed, which would seem to require an accrued contribution at 12/31/2009, assuming the hypothetical actuary has sufficient time to certify an AFTAP prior to April 1. Or have I misread something?

Amen. Thanks again to Dave Baker for this wonderful resource.

1. What does the plan say? 2. Whether this is an operational issue or a plan provision, it must be administered in a non-discriminatory manner.

Just an opinion, without any significant cross-checking: The reference to "benefit increases" in IRC 404(o)(4)(A) is intended to refer to any plan amendment that increases the Funding Target for HCEs, regardless of the specific characteristics of the amendment. Sure, (a) it's not a cogent argument, and (b) it's not arguing in your favor. Sorry.

I've heard that another sign of decline is ending sentences in prepositions.

Just a non-attorney guess: focus first on why the adjustment is being made. If (for example) the retro adjustment is made due to court order or other regulatory authority, there is probably a written document describing it. A "make whole" intention may go beyond the pay itself and cover other forms of compensation. Different answers to the "why" question might lead to different results.

Below Ground is onto something very important. There are probalby many variations of this around: Possibly, "always followed by a dicatorship" is hyperbole, but the risk of collapse is real.

Also good advice.

I'm w/ jpod here. It appears ("stock purchase") that Company A bought Company B "lock stock and barrell". If so, then the buy/sell agreement need not mention any plans, because B remains the sponsor of its plan(s), but now B is a subsidiary (or something similar) of A. If this is an accurate summary, A has no ability to "not accept" Plan B. A is (probably) now a fiduciary of the Plan B. Stated another way: Plan B has not changed, but Company B now has a parent company. Yes, they have the option of merging plans, but careful review by competent advisor(s) is warranted. (Just guessing: did any lawyer look at this in advance?)

I vote for November 09 minimum present value segment rates for a plan year beginning in 2010. http://www.irs.gov/retirement/article/0,,id=177406,00.html

If A purchased B, probably yes, and "not accepting" the plan is not an option. First, this requires a careful review of the buy/sell agreement.

How 'bout the "understand" part?

Before dealing w/ other Qs, it may be prudent to clarify this. If Company A purchased Company B, isn't A now the sponsor of Plan B, thru the plan's successor language?

Some similar discussion: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=26068

Has it been your experience that state courts always know, understand and follow such precedent?

Anyone do a 401(m) test?

It may be reasonable to assume the receiving plan wants absolute documentation of the participant's initial election. Provide it. That said, it may be that a cleaner method of resolution is to reverse the entire transaction, with proper documentation, and start over. If it were me, I would advise my ERISA attorney which course of action I had selected.

See IRC 430(h)(3). The NC and FT of a plan should closely reflect the best estimate of the Plan's actual cost. Different purposes. Not all plans pay lump sums. The use of a 50/50 blend to define a unisex table is expedient and arbitrary, but not necessarily representative of a plan's population. Search for "Stop the Insanity" from a previous Enrolled Actuaries Meeting (2003?).

True it's not an option. Not necessarily correct, I'm focusing on the timing. For example, 411(d)(6) would prevent changing NRA from "age 65" to "later of age 65 and fifth anniversary", except with respect to future accruals. (I don't know if this example is relevant.)

Yeah, I was just hoping someone may have seen something I did not. Wishful thinking. <Sigh>

Yes, as described in the Notice.

There are sex-distinct tables because they are required for the NC and FT.