david rigby

Good documentation is never bad reasoning.

It is hasty to insist the word "transfer" is accurate. For example, Employee terminates employment with Chevrolet, moves to another state, one month later gets a job with Buick; using General Motors (not dealerships) and assumes (only for this example) that each GM subsidiary has its own plan. That is a real separation of employment, not a transfer. Such event might trigger a distributable event, but the new hire might change that status. The important characteristic is to count CG hours of service for purposes of vesting in both plans. Often, the challenge is to identify such employees/hours, but that's what vesting service requires. Note that this might affect more than just vested percent. Suppose eligibility for Early Retirement (or something else) is based on a minimum years of vesting service, just another reason to identify the CG hours.

I'll bite. Yes. Reasoning? Nothing, other than good documentation.

In addition to the portions of ERISA that don't apply to governmental plans, also consider the condition applied to the "exemption": compliance with the statute(s) in effect on the day before ERISA was signed.

Another discussion that might be relevant to this Message Board. https://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?/topic/67381-any-updates-on-non-erisa-governmental-401k-plans/

The plan makes loans to terminated participants?

I'm saddened to report the passing of Bill Whitehurst, ERISA attorney extraordinaire. And a really nice guy. https://www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/winstonsalem/name/william-whitehurst-obituary?pid=197832813#utm_source=journalnow.com&utm_campaign=%2Fnewsletter-templates%2Fobituaries&utm_medium=PostUp&utm_content=355c2d446fed9f1e2e8dee78be6ebfb245df1f67

Did buyer adopt the plan? Maybe it's neither a "mass rollover" nor a "transfer".

Normal form is one thing; available options is another. Check to see what options are permitted in the plan. I've seen dozens of plans that do not contain any optional form that would permit what you are asking, and (perhaps) 3 or 4 plans that do contain that option.

QDROphile states my thoughts much better than I could. As corollary (and his implication), there may be action against the EX for failing to disclose. For example, check your property settlement (maybe not divorce agreement, maybe not QDRO) for language something like (emphasis added): Ya know, judges don't like it when people tell lies.

Just a hunch: this question is asked because prior situations have not done it correctly. Check EPCRS?

What Luke said. What Bill said.

It depends. What documentation do you have/do for any partial termination? Got an amendment that declares 100% vesting for certain terminees?

Maybe this is the central problem. Just sayin'.

... and lawsuits. 😉

I think Hojo is correct. In other words, the default provisions of the plan were triggered since there was no election.

You probably need to look to the relevant documents themselves. If "marital portion" is not clear, perhaps you should get help with clarification. Just my hunch: that term refers to the amount of your benefit (and/or account) at the relevant date, for example date of separation (rather than date of retirement). BTW, we don't know exactly what you mean by OTRS. If it refers to "Oklahoma Teachers Retirement System" (or something similar such as Oregon or Ohio), it's important to know that plans sponsored by governmental organizations might operate under their own set of rules.

I think the "standard" is to show all filings. Both the original and the amended.

I've heard some horror stories about how the pandemic has "interfered" with various agencies keeping up with the paperwork.

Maybe the problem originated with a prior record-keeper? Find out who that was, and ask for help?

Look for 'em?

I lean in a slightly different direction: give 100% vesting upon layoff. At the very least, someone should crunch the numbers to determine how much $$ is involved.

I wonder if you need a POA (power of attorney) for them to talk to you. Another resource might be this "assistance" group from the American Academy of Actuaries. https://www.actuary.org/content/pension-assistance-list-pal. (I've participated myself.)

Not so sure about this statement. If the plan offers a LS, that should be included in whatever options are offered to participant (subject to what the plan says). The participant (not "they") makes the choice of payment form. It's possible the retroactive portion of a LS would equal the retroactive monthly payments. The payment form option is important because that determines whether any portion is rollable.

Assuming the entity is eligible for a 403b plan, I'm not aware of any requirement to terminate the existing plan. It could be frozen, w/o termination.