david rigby

Not sure about Andy's suggestion. Creating a transistion "as if it were circa 1987" seems like recreating a pension account for nearly 20 years. I doubt anyone wants to restate financial results for that. This sounds like a change of accounting policy, which is what the transistion is all about, so why not start the transistion now? Would the organization's auditor have the bigger vote here?

Presumably the ex-husband in the owner of the company, and the company is your client. A few thoughts: What documentation is in writing? Who cut the check? Who authorized a cash distribution w/o tax withholding? Why was the account in the ex-wife's name: due to a prior QDRO? was she also a plan participant? Is is a legitimate QDRO? Does the plan sponsor have an auditor? Assuming you are the TPA and/or recordkeeper, you may wish to discuss the situation with your ERISA counsel before proceeding.

Holy cow! Are you saying that the plan is frozen at the (intended) termination date of 06/30/06? I hope those are two separate provisions in the amendment, else you may have extended your benefit accrual. If this plan bases benefits on compensation, or elapsed time, then any freeze date beyond 06/30/06 can accrue more liability.

In general, ERISA definitions of vesting and vesting service focus on the employment relationship, not the plan relationship. I believe vesting service cannot be frozen.

Voting has nothing to do with this. See ERISA sec. 202, DOL reg. 2530.202.

Comments from Q and Tom are good. But two points: - you don't have to receive the SPD just because you were employed, but must receive it when you become a participant, which is based on the terms of the plan; - Tom's answer is an attempt to explain how a defined contribution (DC) plan works, but it has not been established that this is a DC plan. Check the SPD. (There might be 2 plans, not one, in which case there should be 2 SPDs.)

Not at all. I'm saying the problem (if there is one) can only get worse. Don't let it.

I tend to use "experience", especially in the context of "experience gain/loss". I never use "actuarial gain/loss".

Is someone waiting for an answer? Give the notice to the VTs!

I think this is a plot by Tom to distract us, so we won't pay attention to our clients, and he can steal them.

I agree with Andy.

Perhaps I do not understand the Q. R U stating that the 5500, including Schedule H, was filed for 2004 without an audit report? How was line 3 of the Schedule H completed?

If "firms" means financial institutions, BB&T will establish automatic rollovers. Whether from a DC or DB plan is not relevant. Email me and I can provide some details.

For plan years beginning in 04 and 05, the rate for 404 unfunded CL has a separate range from the rate for the 412 UCL. They can be chosen independently, as documented in previous discussion threads, anywhere within the applicable range for each. If you have not filed the Schedule B, you have not "chosen" the rate. However, the Schedule B has nothing to do with IRC 404; revise your 404 CL if necessary, document your files and your communication to the plan sponsor.

Here's a thought. Talk to the plan sponsor! Perhaps the sponsor is not aware it may be (is?) in violation of anything, and would appreciate the information.

May 31, 2006 MOODY'S DAILY LONG-TERM CORPORATE BOND YIELD AVERAGES Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA* 5.95 5.95 Aa 6.21 6.11 6.16 A 6.43 6.39 6.41 Baa 6.62 6.94 6.78 Avg 6.42 6.35 6.39 MOODY'S DAILY TREASURY YIELD AVERAGES Short-Term (3-5 yrs): 5.00 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs): 5.09 Long-Term (10+ yrs): 5.32 MOODY'S DAILY PUBLIC UTILITY COMMON STOCK YIELD AVERAGES Price: 278.4 Yield: 3.79 New Dividend: 10.56

Theoretically, every buy/sell agreement is unique, but normally, a stock purchase means the sponsoring company will have a new parent company. It does not automatically change the sponsor, but it would alter the controlled group. Thus, there is no requirement to terminate, unless the parties have agreed to it beforehand. And there is no requirement to fully distribute; since making full distributions may take some time, such provision may delay the actual sale by an unknown time. Numerous other alternatives exist, such as a spinoff immediately before the sale, and probably many others that would require legal advice. Oh, they all require that!

And make sure you get the proper legal advice on how to accomplish this.

... and don't assume (here or otherwise) that actuary = TPA. BTW, does the service agreement between the TPA and the plan administrator address this possibility?

I second everything Andy said. BTW, here is one of the more "passionate" discussion threads: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=31437

There might be reasons to suggest a plan termination, but I can think of several reasons to argue against it. Just because another vendor is suggesting one thing is no reason to suggest the opposite. Perhaps you can offer advice to the prospect that will meet their needs.

I agree with mjb. Don't put "transfer" and "termination" in the same sentence. The sponsor should first determine what it wants to accomplish, before deciding on the mechanism. (BTW, if the plan is terminated, purchasing a group annuity may not be available under the terms of the plan document.)

Several other discussion threads on this topic, including links that may be helpful, and comments on the topic of ERISA preemption. Try the Search feature. For example, http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=31537

Ditto.

I'm shocked! Shocked!