[Guidance Overview]
"The new tables reflect the same individual-annuity mortality basis as the 2019 proposal ... and produce life expectancies a year or two longer on average than the current tables.... IRS decided not to include automatic update provisions in the final rule. IRS anticipates — but didn't commit to — reviewing the tables after 10 years or when a new study of individual-annuity mortality experience is published." 
Mercer
|
[Guidance Overview]
"[T]he ERISA limitations on ESG investment could have (and already likely do have) a chilling effect on raising ERISA-based capital for any investment fund or product that has a purpose to focus on and/or promote ESG factors.... To the extent the [marketing] materials related to a product or a fund acknowledge that investment returns may be compromised and/or risk increased due to ESG factors, an ERISA fiduciary would need to disregard the DOL's view on these types of investments in deciding to make such an investment." 
Akin Gump
|
[Guidance Overview]
"The final rule establishes a reporting structure for pooled plan providers that includes an initial registration filing providing basic information about the pooled plan provider. Under the final rule, registration is required upon the operation of a pooled employer plan, rather than, as was required in the proposed rule, publicly marketing services as a pooled plan provider or publicly offering a pooled employer plan." 
Thomson Reuters Practical Law
|
"[P]laintiffs allege that the defendants did not take advantage of the $817 million LinkedIn 401(k) plan's leverage as a large plan in the defined contribution plan marketplace.... According to the complaint, LinkedIn used the more risky Freedom Funds when a substantially less costly and less risky option -- Freedom Index Funds -- was available and also did not offer the CIT version offered by Fidelity. Plaintiffs allege that these actions resulted in the loss of millions of dollars to the LinkedIn 401(k) plan." [Bailey v. LinkedIn Corp., No. 20-5704 (N.D. Cal. complaint filed Aug. 14, 2020)] 
Hall Benefits Law
|
[Opinion]
"Keeping politics out of the management of other people's pension plans is an essential part of our duty of loyalty and our fiduciary obligations. That is why the recent announcement by the [DOL] of a final rule laying out stringent guidelines for fiduciaries of retirement plans under [ERISA] is a welcome and much-needed step in the right direction." 
Christopher Burnham, via Forbes
|
Executive Compensation and Nonqualified Plans
|
"Executives may find that pushing out access to NQDC plan money by five years is a more beneficial and strategic option than receiving that money as a lump sum payout at a time when the executive is in the highest tax bracket.... Strategically re-deferring money, creating multiple buckets with differing payout schedules or through the election of a different pay out schedule for each year can be a tax-favorable decision." 
Fulcrum Partners LLC
|
"The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals [ASBCA] recently issued a decision awarding Northrop Grumman Corporation (Northrop) $74 million under the Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) for the settlement of costs relating to the curtailment of Northrop's Officers Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan (OSERP).... There are two principal takeaways ... [1] contractors may successfully rely on a FAR 30.602(c)(1) materiality defense when there is no material cost difference due to a [cost accounting standards (CAS)] violation, and ... [2] the Board will not consider expert opinions directly on the interpretation of the CAS and will instead focus on the text of the CAS provisions and any guidance published by the CAS Board." [Northrop Grumman, No. 61775 (Armed Serv. Bd. of Contract Appeals, Oct. 7, 2020)] 
Miller & Chevalier
|
Selected Discussions on the BenefitsLink Message Boards
|
► It's easy to sign up and participate in discussions! Post answers, ask questions, create custom feeds and views. Join your peers (and potential referral sources or customers)—there is no charge.
|
"I was approached to do a termination for an overfunded DB plan (non-PBGC).... Unfortunately, the provisions require that the excess be distributed to the participants (always a bad choice, at least in my opinion). To confirm my understanding, this is a protected provision and cannot be amended to 'revert to company' prior to termination date. The idea is to transfer the excess to a QRP. Also, there are 2 terminated participants. If the excess distributed to the participants, do the terminees get additional allocation? Assume no 415 issues." 
BenefitsLink Message Boards
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Most Popular Items in the Previous Issue
|
|
|
|