david rigby

Hahahahahaha. Take the advice from vebaguru.

In addtion to the above comments, please note the original post (both title and first sentence) indicate a merger of plans. However, the body of the post also states merger of companies. Clarity is useful. Perhaps both events are happening, but it would be hasty to assume that, especially on these Message Boards. Even so, they need not happen simultaneously. As QDROphile notes, first look to the terms of the documents. Possibly, the documents of the company merger will state the intent of the parties, and then the documents of the plan merger will follow.

Terminology is important. The original post mentioned a spinoff of a company, not a plan. Spinning off a plan may avoid such issues as a partial termination. Not a certainty, but this issue is more likely in a company spinoff. This may be significant enough to encourage a plan spinoff first. ERISA legal advisor will be able to provide assistance.

11/30/05 MOODY'S DAILY LONG-TERM CORPORATE BOND YIELD AVERAGES Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA* 5.42 5.42 Aa 5.57 5.48 5.53 A 5.85 5.77 5.81 Baa 6.18 6.57 6.38 Avg 5.87 5.81 5.84 MOODY'S DAILY TREASURY YIELD AVERAGES Short-Term (3-5 yrs): 4.40 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs): 4.49 Long-Term (10+ yrs): 4.76 MOODY'S DAILY PUBLIC UTILITY COMMON STOCK YIELD AVERAGES Price: 281.7 Yield: 3.81 New Dividend: 10.72

Grammar notwithstanding, QDROs do not apply to governmental plans. A QDRO, or a DRO in this case, applies to the spousal support, child support, etc. It does not have any bearing on an employment relationship.

Discussed several times here previously. Do a search on the Message Boards, using the word "fraud" or "sham". Take the high road, and don't have anything to do with sham terminations, or any other type of fraud.

What is meant by "deferred compensation" in this context? Are you saying that the qualified 401(k) plan covers non-qualifed deferred comp?

Is there a "substantial" likelihood of discovering prior "intentional misconduct or gross neglect"? (This may or may not be only a rhetorical question.)

Probably obvious, but one way to help narrow this down, at least with respect to the AL, is match the inactive participants first. BTW, if FAS87 is applicable, I suggest you spend some time trying to match these values as well.

Are you the actuary? If so, "you" are not changing the measurement date. To see some discussion on this topic, read this: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=20854 I agree that the NPPC should be 12 months, assuming it applies to a company financial statement that covers 12 months. It is unclear from your phrasing and dates exactly which 12 months are in question. Are you saying that you previously calculated the CY2005 NPPC at 12/31/04, and are now calculating the CY2006 NPPC at 9/30/05? If not, please elaborate. If so, are you using the same census data in both? What asset value are you using?

Not quite, but the net effect is about the same. I suggest your best source of information is your friendly neighborhood Enrolled Actuary.

Attorney has asked me for recommendation(s) for an EA to assist in a QDRO. Attorney represents the employee. In addition to more than one qualified plan, there may be multiple non-qualified plans for which a PV is desired. (Employee/participant is an executive in a large co.) Attorney indicates high likelihood that the EA may also be needed in court testimony. Hence, I suggested that the attorney should engage someone with substantial experience in this area. I don't want to touch this, but am willing to provide attorney with 2-3 referrals. However, I don't know any such specialists, or how to search for them. Any suggestions? Attorney is in NC (not sure where the employee resides).

I also would be concerned with a variation of 10%. To be fair, you said "less than 10%", but did not elaborate. Assuming you have a copy of the plan document to follow, you probably have two primary things to review for closer matching: (1) data, and (2) assumptions. It would not surprise me if its both.

Blinky! Ziggy_112405.htm

Effen is correct. The participant should get out and read his SPD. (He did save it, didn't he?)

Net return, not gross. Safety of the investment itself.

After re-reading (and paying attention to the absolute value function), I agree with Ron.

Reasonable? Probably. Under Rev.Proc. 2000-40? I don't think it would be considered one of the pre-approved methods, but may not have difficulty being approved under Rev.Proc. 2000-41.

To what allowable exclusion are you referring? Don't forget that IRC 410 exclusion refers to a CBA and requires that retirement benefits are the subject of good faith bargaining. Mere presence of a union is not the same. There have been several prior discussion threads related to this topic.

I agree. There may be other discussions besides this one: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=30007

Maybe. Documentation is the key. How do you know it is a partial termination? Write it down. A plan amendment may be a desirable part of the documentation.

No. Yes. No.

Interesting, but I suspect the original Q was contemplating a different type of load. The response to that may be the usual "it depends." What type of load is the actuary currently using? If it is a common technique of adding $X or Y% to the contribution, then that probably is not part of CL or PBGC liability, and is often expressed as a load to the NC, not a load to the AL or PVAB.

I agree with Frank and mwyatt. To complete the documentation, I called Jim Holland this morning. His response was essentially the same: "It depends". Specifically, it depends on whether the suspension notice is given. If no notice, then failure to apply the actuarial increase would be an impermissible forfeiture of benefits.

Elevating this question, anyone have an opinon, or cite, on the question of how a plan freeze affects the "actuarial increase" provision? (I found nothing in the ERISA Outline Book, and nothing in the Gray Book.)