Control Group w/ multiple investment providers

[Guest padmin]

3 companies have merged. The entities offer identical plans and thus have no problems merging the plans and operating under one document. The problem is that each entity would like to maintain current investment options/provider ( A couple of mutual fund programs and a group annuity.) Is there any problem with this other than having to offer all 3 providers to all participants? Can we limit participants to one provider and still have 404© protection?

[austin3515]

As long as all participants have the option of going into all 3 platforms, you wouldn't have any issues from a nondiscimination perspective (i.e., for benefits rights and features). As far as 404© goes, your educational requirements are now 3x as difficult because you have 3 platforms now. That makes it easier for a savvy attorney to burst your 404© bubble. Not to mention the administrative headache!

I would not go there, if I were you...

[GBurns]

If 3 entities have merged, there should now be only 1 entity, shouldn't there? If there is now only 1 entity, I do not understand "each entity would like to maintain current investment options/provider ". What do you mean "each entity"? Divisions?

Anyhow, as austin3515 points out, you should offer all 3 to all participants if you can keep the plan as described.

[Blinky the 3-eyed Fish]

As long as all participants have the option of going into all 3 platforms, you wouldn't have any issues from a nondiscimination perspective (i.e., for benefits rights and features).

But I think the original post is asking what are the ramifications if they don't provide all 3 platforms to everybody, rather each division continues on using the providers they were before the merge. As Austin mentions, this is a BRF issue that needs to be tested for nondiscrimination. If it passes, then it is okay from that standpoint.