JWRB

Hi everyone, I'm curious what everyone else is doing for an e-mail retention policy. We're looking to put an auto-deletion policy in place, but are having a hard time nailing down an appropriate set of parameters. Seven years is where my mind instantly goes, but in light of cumbersome investigations and producing copious amounts of email, I'd love to trim that back if possible. What is everyone else using and what are your thoughts on whatever you implemented/considered? Thanks!

We got the greenlight for the .mbox! Thanks for the help, everyone. This makes life a lot easier.

I actually did a trial with that and it kept failing, but thank you! I'm hopeful we can find an easy way to pass these on without going through extra processes, but we shall see.

Thanks everyone. I'm really hoping the .mbox method works; I'll report back when I hear back.

Per our subpoena, we need to produce a large amount of emails to an auditor; over a few hundred, easily. How have you guys produced emails in the past? I can pretty easily get the totality of messages in an mbox format, or .EML, but I'm concerned we're going to need to produce as PDFs, which is going to take an absurd amount of time since batch export to PDF, frankly, doesn't work well. I appreciate any input you all may have, as I'm getting pretty concerned. Our email is housed with GMail, but I can import to Thunderbird pretty easily and export that way, as well. Thunderbird doesn't export attachments with PDF, however.

Ok you win haha. That's awful.

Also, on everything I posted about, I do not have a conclusion. I merely have gut reactions and assumptions; I'm looking for a concrete resolution either way, even if it doesn't agree with me.

Haha fair response. I'm liking this point by point thing, so let's keep it going: 1) I'm dropping this one, not because I disagree, but because I can't give you all of the facts. 2) I agree that the plan was established and is maintained. My concern is with both forcing employers to participate and noone having the ability to amend/terminate the plan. 3) Right, I'm not arguing that individuals didn't perform the actions of funding the plan. Suffice to say that the employer whose stock is in the plan in no way could be an employer of the plan. 4) I definitely need to look into this; thank you for bringing it to light. I know it's completely unfair of me to attempt to hold a discussion while withholding facts. The help and discussion have been tremendous so far, so thank you for that. This is the wonkiest case I've ever dealt with.

I 100% agree with your skepticism. Let me deal with it point by point: They're employees, but I don't believe them to be employees covered by ERISA. I can't divulge those facts, unfortunately. Maintained in the sense where there are trustees, but I don't think they're doing much of anything. I don't have all of the information on administration, but I know that not much occurs. But I will admit it's being "maintained" in the traditional sense by trustees. The plan was funded with stock in a related company; the company whose stock was in the plan was not an employer in the plan. It was most definitely established by an employer, just not all employers (nor formally adopted to the best of my knowledge) I don't know about the trust income and 1041. I think it falls out of ERISA for a multitude of reasons. I'm just looking to bolster my argument by poking as many holes as I can. I'm running down a lot of paths right now; finding out that one is fruitless is just as good as getting a helpful argument. I really appreciate your help.

Let me assure you all that this is absolute nonsense to anyone involved aside from those bringing the claim. We are dumbfounded that this is being litigated. I have a really solid argument that the plan doesn't cover employees, and am currently attacking establish/maintain and "employer." MoJo, I know it's goofy all around. I'm not arguing that it's lack of compliance with ERISA is damning, I'm looking for something de facto and that, no, this cannot fall under ERISA. I'm extremely troubled that a plan where noone has autonomy over it can be both under ERISA and forced to operate until its exhausted. That just runs contrary to what I think the intent behind ERISA was. jpod, me neither unfortunately. The plan is "maintained" by the trustee, which has shifted over the years from the original individuals I stated, to a related corporation, now to an independent trustee. I'm honestly not sure how benefits are currently paid. The benefits are an annuity based on salary over y period, upon retirement, after x years of service. I know that employers whose employees were covered under this had de minimis involvement. My 2 cents, you and me both. The intent behind it was to provide retirement benefits to lifetime employees, no argument there. Without diving into details, this is not a traditional employee/employer relationship. If this were to fall under ERISA, it could cost 7-9 figures, countless hours to fix, and an ungodly amount of work.

Thanks for the replies so far. I omitted which side I was on as to not influence anything, but since you asked, we're arguing against it being covered by ERISA; an argument I also happen to 100% believe in. Regarding type of plan, it's 100% for retirement benefits; you work x amount of years for the employer and are guaranteed a pension.

I have an extremely weird scenario that I'm absolutely stuck on. I have a pre-ERISA irrevocable trust that, for some reason, is being litigated to get it under ERISA coverage. Important facts are as follows: Trust covers employees of let's say 20 individuals, all within one family. When a family member dies, the plan automatically covers the next of kin's employees. So the hypothetical 20 individuals is over a course of years; they weren't all involved at the same time. The trust was originally created by one individual, with a few others serving as trustees. Trustees changed over the years, but suffice to say that most owner individuals never actively participated in the plan; it automatically covered their employees. The trust was originally funded with stock; there have since been no other contributions what so ever. The trust would terminate when it ran out of money or beneficiaries. Critical, to me, is the fact that no one can amend or terminate the plan, and the trustees' job was limited to directing payouts. This plan literally has to run its course, and the end is not in sight. I have some solid arguments based around establishing/maintaining the plan, so I'm not worried about arguing that element. The argument I can't substantiate beyond my gut feeling is that basically no entity having autonomy over the plan is OK under ERISA. In the same breath, I have employers not "maintaining" a plan that they're also forced to participate in in perpetuity, which is bizarre to me. None of these employers have taken active steps to adopt the plan (barring it's inception), nor have they had any hand in administration. The whole thing just doesn't sit well with me. Any insight would be much appreciated; thank you.

Hi everyone, As the topic states, are there any definitions or cases that exemplify "maintaining" a plan? The Advocate SC ruling that recently came down points to "funding and administering" as components, but I'm looking for something more concrete. Based off of a plain reading, maintenance could easily fall on plan trustees (especially with a plan that's ceased funding), and I'm curious what you all think. Thanks!

Thanks for the responses, everyone. We're going to roll with it.

I have a 401(k) plan that has a two year wait for employer profit sharing contributions, with immediate vesting for that contribution. The profit sharing provisions predated the implementation of a 401(k) program in the plan. There is, of course, a one year wait for 401(k) deferral contributions. The plan is currently top heavy, and the top heavy vesting schedule is 2/20. The question we have boils down to the following: can a plan run two concurrent vesting schedules for different employer contributions? The profit sharing contribution is very generous, and the plan sponsor is adamant about keeping the two year wait to receive it, and intends to maintain full and immediate vesting on that contribution. However, the plan sponsor wants to prolong vesting of the first year TH contribution as long as possible and utilize the 2/20 vesting for that contribution. Is this possible? Thanks!