"Looking for some basic guidance. Bullet points for simplicity:

• My masseuse is Vietnamese. Her sister's spouse/sig-other passes away suddenly. He has assets in a 401k
• The deceased did not trust his wife with funds (and they were not legally married) so he decided to put my masseuse (his sister in law) as the beneficiary of the 401k assets with the understanding that funds would be used for the benefit of the deceased's child (single child).
• Somehow, the beneficiary name was my masseuses first name and the deceased's LAST name (they are unrelated and not married). The deceased, apparently, did not understand English well, nor the ramifications of this but thought if he put his sister-in-law's first name and his last name, that somehow it would work out in the end.
• So, 401k has a non-existent sole beneficiary (there is NO ONE with the legal name ascribed to beneficiary status, essentially a made up name), the deceased was never officially married to the now widow and the intent was for the 401k to go the widow's sister for management purposes.

'I have offered to call the 401k admin to explain the situation and get some advise (I believe it's empower), but they won't talk to anyone who isn't associated with the account (not my masseuse, not the widow, no one), nor will the employer get involved. How does one even begin to address this (state of Massachusetts). Will the assets eventually escheat to the state? Are we talking legal counsel and a drawn out process?"

"I'm interested in hearing about how employers have contracted with health plans; do you use a Request for Proposals (RFP) procurement process or some other form of procurement, e.g., Request for Bids (RFB) or Invitation to Negotiate? I'm also interested in the pros and cons related to different procurement mechanisms you've used, what has proved most successful, what hasn't and why or other lessons learned. I would appreciate any information you can share about your health plan procurement process!"

"We've recommended that the Plan Administrator obtain guidance from an ERISA attorney, but I'm interested in how others would view this situation. The TPA designed the floor offset defined benefit plan and prepares the Form 5500. The 2024 plan year is the first year the plan met the audit requirement threshold. Per the Form 5500 filings, the TPA has consistently indicated that PBGC premiums are not required (i.e., 'No' to PBGC coverage) since plan inception. However, based on our understanding of the Plan sponsor, it does not appear to fall within a typical PBGC exemption category (e.g., not a governmental plan, church plan, small professional service employer, or owner-only plan).

"Given that private-sector DB plans are generally covered by PBGC unless an exemption applies, the lack of PBGC premiums raises a question as to whether the plan has been appropriately classified. In addition, if the plan should have been subject to PBGC coverage, this would introduce additional compliance concerns, including the apparent failure to issue required Notices of Intent to Terminate (NOITs). In your experience, have you seen situations where a floor offset DB plan would legitimately not be subject to PBGC coverage under these facts? Or would this typically warrant further review (e.g., potential missed premiums or misclassification)?"