Fiduciary duties – ERISA Benefits Law

Presence Not Required – IRS Extends Remote Signature Procedures for Qualified Plans

The IRS has extended temporary relief allowing plan representatives to witness participant elections or spousal waivers via videoconference until June 30, 2021.

The IRS initially provided relief from the physical presence requirement from January 1, 2020 through December 31, 2020 in IRS Notice 2020-42 in response to the COVID-19 related social distancing restrictions. On December 22, 2020, the IRS extended that relief through June 30, 2020 through IRS Notice 2021-03.

The relief provides that participant elections required to be witnessed by a plan representative or notary public, including spousal consent, may be satisfied using alternative procedures that do not require physical presence. For a participant election witnessed by a notary public, the physical presence requirement is deemed satisfied with remote notarization using live audio-video technology that satisfies certain requirements. For a participant or spousal election witnessed by a plan representative, the physical presence requirement is deemed satisfied if an audio-video system is used that satisfies the following requirements:

The individual signing the election presents a valid photo ID to the plan representative during the videoconference (transmitting the ID before or after the videoconference is not good enough);
The video conference is live and allows direct interaction between the participant and plan representative;
The individual faxes or electronically transmits a legible copy of the signed document to the plan representative on the same day it is signed; and
After receiving the signed document, the plan representative acknowledges that the signature has been witnessed by the plan representative and transmits the signed document, including the acknowledgement, back to the individual using an electronic medium the individual can easily access.

Notice 2021-03

DOL Final Rule Facilitates Retirement Plan Electronic Disclosures

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) published a final rule on May 27, 2020 that will allow employers to post retirement plan disclosures online or deliver them to employees by email, as a default. The DOL believes this will make it easier for employers to furnish retirement plan disclosures electronically, reducing administrative expenses and making disclosures more readily accessible and useful for employees.

Background

There are approximately 700,000 retirement plans covered by ERISA, covering approximately 137 million participants. ERISA-covered retirement plans must furnish multiple disclosures each year to participants and beneficiaries. The number of disclosures per year depends on the specific type of retirement plan, its features, and for defined benefit plans, the plan’s funding status.

Delivery methods for ERISA disclosures must be reasonably calculated to ensure that workers actually receive the disclosures. To deliver disclosures electronically, plan administrators previously had to rely on a regulatory safe harbor established by the DOL in 2002. See 29 CFR 2520.104b-1(c).

On August 31, 2018, the President issued Executive Order 13847, directing the DOL to review whether regulatory or other actions could be taken to make retirement plan disclosures more understandable and useful for participants and beneficiaries and to focus on reducing the costs and burdens that retirement plan disclosures impose on employers and others responsible for their production and distribution. The Order specifically emphasized that this review include an exploration of the potential for broader use of electronic delivery as a way to improve the effectiveness of the disclosures and to reduce their associated costs and burdens.

New Voluntary Safe Harbor

The new electronic disclosure rule establishes a new, voluntary safe harbor for retirement plan administrators who want to use electronic media, as a default, to furnish covered documents to covered individuals, rather than sending potentially large volumes of paper documents through the mail. The new safe harbor permits the following two optional methods for electronic delivery:

Website Posting. Plan administrators may post covered documents on a website if appropriate notification of internet availability is furnished to the electronic addresses of covered individuals.
Email Delivery. Alternatively, plan administrators may send covered documents directly to the electronic addresses of covered individuals, with the covered documents either in the body of the email or as an attachment to the email.

Retirement plan administrators who comply with the safe harbor will satisfy their statutory duty under ERISA to furnish covered documents to covered individuals. The safe harbor is limited in the following respects:

Limited Scope of the New Safe Harbor

The safe harbor is limited to retirement plan disclosures.

A plan administrator may use this safe harbor only for “covered individuals.” To be a covered individual, the person must be entitled under ERISA to receive covered documents and must have a valid electronic address (e.g., email address or smart phone number).

The new safe harbor does not supersede the 2002 safe harbor; the 2002 safe harbor remains in place as another option for plan administrators.

Protections for Plan Participants

The new safe harbor includes a variety of protections for covered individuals, including:
1. Right to Paper. Covered individuals can request paper copies of specific documents, or globally opt out of electronic delivery entirely, at any time, free of charge.

2. Initial Notification. Covered individuals must be furnished an initial notification, on paper, that the way they currently receive retirement plan disclosures (e.g., paper delivery in the US mail) is changing. The notice must inform them of the new electronic delivery method, the electronic address that will be used, and the right to opt out if they prefer paper disclosures, among other things. The notice must be given to them before the plan may use the new safe harbor.

3. Notifications of Internet Availability. Covered individuals generally must be furnished a notice of internet availability (NOIA) each time a new covered document is made available for review on the internet website.

To avoid “notice overload,” the final rule permits an annual NOIA to include information about multiple covered documents, instead of multiple NOIAs throughout the year.

The NOIA must briefly describe or identify the covered document that is being posted online, include an address or hyperlink to the website, and inform the covered individual of the right to request paper copies or to opt out of electronic delivery altogether.

The NOIA must be concise, understandable, and contain only specified information.

4. Website Retention. Covered documents must remain on an internet website until superseded by a subsequent version, but in no event for less than one year.

5. System Check for Invalid Electronic Addresses. Plan administrators must ensure that the electronic delivery system is designed to alert them if a participant’s electronic address is invalid or inoperable. In that case, the administrator must attempt to promptly cure the problem, or treat the participant as opting out of electronic delivery.

6. System Check at Termination of Employment. When someone leaves their job, the plan administrator must take steps to ensure the continued accuracy and operability of the person’s employer-provided electronic address.

Effective Date & Immediate Availability

The new safe harbor is effective July 27, 2020 (60 days after its publication in the Federal Register). However, the DOL, as an enforcement policy, will not take any enforcement action against a plan administrator that relies on this safe harbor before that date.

Erwin Kratz Discusses Fiduciary Compliance for Plan Sponsors

ERISA Benefits Law attorney Erwin Kratz was a panelist on “ERISA Principles That Every Plan Fiduciary Needs to Know”, presented by Wellspring Financial Partners on February 19, 2020. Erwin joined Eric Dyson of Wellspring, who discussed the four main fiduciary duties – the duties of Loyalty, of Prudence, to Diversify Plan Assets and to Follow the Plan Documents.

Erwin then provided practical tips for fiduciary compliance by discussing four points of impact when the “fiduciary rubber” most frequently hits the road:

When Restating your Plan
Top Three Mistakes a Committee Can Make
How to be a Good Committee Member; and
Working with your Non-Fiduciary Administrative Staff

View the YouTube video here:

And download a copy of the PowerPoint Presentation here:

ERISA Benefits Law Wellspring Financial Partners Fiduciary Presentation- February 2020 Download

PBGC’s Expanded Missing Participant Program Final Rule Covers DC Plans and non-PBGC Insured DB Plans

As authorized by the Pension Protection Act of 2006 (PPA), the Pension and Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PBGC) has issued a final regulation that expands PBGC’s missing participants program, effective as of plan terminations that occur on or after January 1, 2018. PBGC’s missing participant program was previously limited to terminated single-employer DB plans covered by title IV’s insurance program. It is now available to other terminated retirement plans.

Summary of How the PBGC MIssing Participant Program Applies to Defined Contribution (DC) Plans and non-PBGC Defined Benefit Plans

The revised program now provides that PBGC’s missing participants program is voluntary for terminated non-PBGC-insured plans, e.g.,DC plans.

In addition, a non-PBGC-insured plan that chooses to use the program may elect to be a “transferring plan” or a “notifying plan.” A transferring plan sends the benefit amounts of missing distributees to PBGC’s missing participants program. A notifying plan informs PBGC of the disposition of the benefits of one or more of its missing distributees. Section 4050(d)(1) of ERISA permits but does not require non-PBGC-insured plans covered by the program to turn missing participants’ benefits over to PBGC.

A DC plan that chooses to participate in the missing participants program and elects to be a transferring plan must transfer the benefits of all its missing participants into the missing participants program. PBGC explains that this is to prevent the possibility of “cherry-picking”—that is, selective use of the missing participants program—by transferring plans.

PBGC will charge a one-time $35 fee per missing distributee, payable when benefit transfer amounts are paid to PBGC. There will be no charge for amounts transferred to PBGC of $250 or less. There will be no charge for plans that only send to PBGC information about where benefits are held (such as in an IRA or under an annuity contract). Fees will be set forth in the program’s forms and instructions.

The program definition of “missing” for DC plans follows Department of Labor regulations,which treat DC plan distributees who cannot be found following a diligent search similar to distributees whose whereabouts are known but who do not elect a form of distribution.

A distributee is treated as missing if, upon close-out, the distributee does not accept a lump sum distribution made in accordance with the terms of the plan and, if applicable, any election made by the distributee. For example, if a check issued pursuant to a distributee’s election of a lump sum remains uncashed after the last date prescribed on the check or an accompanying notice (e.g., by the bank or the plan) for cashing it (the “cash-by” date), the distributee is considered not to have accepted the lump sum.

A DC plan must search for each missing distributee whose location the plan does not know with reasonable certainty. The plan must search in accordance with regulations and other applicable guidance issued by the Secretary of Labor under section 404 of ERISA. See the DOL’s FAB 2014-01 for guidance on search steps. Compliance with that guidance satisfies PBGC’s “diligent search” standard for DC plans.

Some other major features of the new program include:

A unified unclaimed pension database of information about missing participants and their benefits from terminated DB and DC plans.
A centralized, reliable, easy-to-use directory through which persons who may be owed retirement benefits from DB or DC plans could find out whether benefits are being held for them.
Periodic active searches by PBGC for missing participants.
Fewer benefit categories and fewer sets of actuarial assumptions for DB plans determining the amount to transfer to PBGC and a free on-line calculator to do certain actuarial calculations.

Visit the PBGC’s Missing Participant site for more information, including an explanation of the plans covered by the program and the forms and instructions to use with the program.

Our prior post on the proposed regulations is here

9th Circuit Clarifies Service Provider’s Fiduciary Duties When Negotiating Fees and When Withdrawing Fees from Plan Assets

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has issued an opinion in Santomenno v. Transamerica LLC, clarifying the circumstances under which a retirement plan investment service provider breaches (and does not breach) its fiduciary duties when negotiating its fees and when collecting the agreed fees from plan accounts.

The Case

The trial court in this case held that the plan investment service provider breached its fiduciary duties to plan beneficiaries first when negotiating with the employer about providing services to the plan and later when withdrawing predetermined fees from plan funds.

The 9th Circuit held that a plan administrator is not an ERISA fiduciary when negotiating its compensation with a prospective customer. The employer/plan sponsor doing the hiring is acting under a fiduciary duty when it negotiates these fees. Therefore, the prospective service provider did not breach its duties in negotiating for the fees it wanted to receive.

The Court also held that the service provider was not a fiduciary with respect to its receipt of revenue sharing payments from investment managers after it became a service provider to the Plan because the payments were fully disclosed before the provider agreements were signed and did not come from plan assets.

Finally, and most significantly, the Court held that the service provider also did not breach its fiduciary duty with respect to its withdrawal of the preset fees from plan funds. The Court concluded that when a service provider’s definitively calculable and nondiscretionary compensation is clearly set forth in a contract with the fiduciary-employer, collection of those fees out of plan funds in strict adherence to that contractual term is not a breach of the provider’s fiduciary duty. The withdrawal of its fees in such circumstances is a ministerial act that does not give rise to fiduciary liability.

The Take-Aways

This case highlights the importance of the fiduciary role played by the plan sponsor and administrator when hiring service providers to the Plan. Hiring and retention decisions are fiduciary acts on the part of the employer/plan sponsor, but are not fiduciary acts on the part of the service provider being hired.

In addition, while this case illustrates that it is not always a fiduciary act for a service provider to withdraw its fees directly from plan assets, that is not true in every case. For example, if the Plan sponsor or administrator disputed a charge before the service provider withdrew its fees, or if the fees withdrawn by the service provider were based on hours worked or some other non-ministerial measure of the service provided, the withdrawal may not be ministerial. This case therefore does not give service providers free reign to withdraw fees from plan assets without consideration of their fiduciary duties.

Santomenno v. Transamerica LLC

DOL Issues Additional Fiduciary Rule Enforcement Relief and FAQ Guidance

The DOL has issued temporary enforcement relief and FAQ guidance addressing the implementation of the DOL’s final fiduciary rule on investment advice conflicts and related prohibited transaction exemptions (PTEs) during the transition period beginning June 9, 2017 and ending January 1, 2018.

As background, the fiduciary rule and PTEs were effective June 7, 2016, with an initial applicability date of April 10, 2017. The applicability date was delayed 60 days to June 9, 2017. See our prior article here. In connection with the delay, the DOL amended the Best Interest Contract (BIC) exemption and the PTEs to provide transition relief that only requires adherence to the impartial conduct standards (including the best interest standard) through January 1, 2018.The standards specifically require advisers and financial institutions to:

(1) Give advice that is in the “best interest” of the retirement investor. This best interest standard has two chief components: prudence and loyalty:

Under the prudence standard, the advice must meet a professional standard of care as specified in the text of the exemption;
Under the loyalty standard, the advice must be based on the interests of the customer, rather than the competing financial interest of the adviser or firm;

(2) Charge no more than reasonable compensation; and

(3) Make no misleading statements about investment transactions, compensation, and conflicts of interest.

Highlights of the most recent transition guidance:

Temporary Enforcement Policy on Fiduciary Duty Rule (FAB 2017-02). The DOL announced on May 22, 2017 that it will not pursue claims during the transition period against fiduciaries who are “working diligently and in good faith” to comply with the new fiduciary rule and the related exemptions. The DOL also states that IRS confirms that FAB 2017-02 constitutes “other subsequent related enforcement guidance” for purposes of IRS Announcement 2017-4, which means that the IRS will not impose prohibited transaction excise taxes or related reporting obligations on any transactions or agreements during the transition period that would be subject to the DOL’s nonenforcement policy.

DOL FAQ Guidance on the Transition Period. The DOL also issued FAQs, which review the DOL’s “phased implementation approach”, and confirm that on June 9, 2017, firms and advisers who are fiduciaries need to alter their compensation practices to avoid PTEs or satisfy the transition period requirements under the BIC or another exemption. During the transition, firms should adopt policies and procedures they “reasonably conclude” are necessary to ensure that advisers comply with the impartial conduct standards. However, there is no requirement to give investors any warranty of their adoption, and those standards will not necessarily be failed if certain conflicts of interest continue during the transition period. Other highlights include a clarification that level-fee providers can rely on the BIC exemption during the transition period, and examples of participant communications and non-client-specific investment models that do not provide fiduciary advice. The guidance also indicates that the President’s mandated review (see our prior article here) has not been completed, but when it is, additional changes might be made to the rule or the PTEs.

DOL Delays Fiduciary Duty Rule for 60 Days and Invites Comments on Whether to Further Delay, Amend, or Withdraw the Rule

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) today announced a proposed extension of the applicability dates of the fiduciary rule and related exemptions, including the Best Interest Contract Exemption, from April 10 to June 9, 2017.

The announcement follows a presidential memorandum issued on Feb. 3, 2017, which directed the DOL to examine the fiduciary rule to determine whether it may adversely affect the ability of Americans to gain access to retirement information and financial advice. See our prior post, which explained that the President’s memorandum

..instructs the DOL to rescind or revise the rule . . . if it concludes for any other reason after appropriate review that the Fiduciary Duty Rule is inconsistent with the Administration’s stated priority “to empower Americans to make their own financial decisions, to facilitate their ability to save for retirement and build the individual wealth necessary to afford typical lifetime expenses, such as buying a home and paying for college, and to withstand unexpected financial emergencies”.

The DOL’s latest announcement invites comments that might help inform updates to the legal and economic analysis it conducted in originally issuing the rule (during President Obama’s term), including any issues the public believes were inadequately addressed in the prior analysis. The DOL has also invited comments on market responses to the final rule and the related Prohibited Transaction Exemptions (PTEs) to date, and on the costs and benefits attached to such responses. The comment period runs 45 days from today.

Upon completion of its examination, the DOL may decide to allow the
final rule and PTEs to become applicable, issue a further extension of the applicability date, propose to withdraw the rule, or propose amendments to the rule and/or the PTEs.

President Orders Review of Fiduciary Duty Rule

On February 3, 2017, the President issued a Presidential Memorandum on the Fiduciary Duty Rule, ordering the Department of Labor (DOL) to “examine the Fiduciary Duty Rule to determine whether it may adversely affect the ability of Americans to gain access to retirement information and financial advice”.

DOL Review

The memorandum directs the DOL to “prepare an updated economic and legal analysis concerning the impact of the Fiduciary Duty Rule”, considering whether the rule:

has harmed or is likely to harm investors due to a reduction in access to certain retirement savings offerings, retirement product structures, retirement savings information, or related financial advice;
has resulted in dislocations or disruptions within the retirement services industry that may adversely affect investors or retirees; or
is likely to cause an increase in litigation, and an increase in the prices that investors and retirees must pay to gain access to retirement services.

Possible Revision or Rescission

The memorandum also instructs the DOL to rescind or revise the rule if it makes an affirmative determination as to any of the above considerations, or if it concludes for any other reason after appropriate review that the Fiduciary Duty Rule is inconsistent with the Administration’s stated priority “to empower Americans to make their own financial decisions, to facilitate their ability to save for retirement and build the individual wealth necessary to afford typical lifetime expenses, such as buying a home and paying for college, and to withstand unexpected financial emergencies”.

Possible Delay

While the Memorandum does not directly delay the rule, the acting U.S. Secretary of Labor, Ed Hugler, responded to the President’s direction through a News Release stating that “The Department of Labor will now consider its legal options to delay the applicability date as we comply with the President’s memorandum.”

While it is still unclear whether the DOL will delay the rule, it is entirely possible, likely even, that the DOL will delay the rule within the next few weeks. It is also a good bet that the DOL will ultimately make some revisions to the rule, even if they do not rescind it entirely. In the meantime, financial advisors and others subject to the Rule will need to evaluate their compliance efforts so that they remain as nimble as possible in the face of he constantly shifting regulatory sands.

Plan Sponsors and Plan Administrators should note that neither the Fiduciary Duty Rule, nor the potential impending changes to the rule, directly impact their responsibilities as plan fiduciaries, other than how the rule impacts those providing financial advice to Plan Sponsors and Administrators.

DOL Conflict of Interest Final Rule Page

PBGC Expands Missing Participant Program to Defined Contribution Plans

The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) has issued a Proposed Rule that would redesign its existing missing participants program for single employer Defined Benefit (DB) plans and to adopt three new missing participants programs that will cover most Defined Contribution (DC) plans, as well as multiemployer DB plans and professional service employer DB plans. All four programs would follow the same basic design. Among the most prominent changes to the existing program would be:

• Provision for fees to be charged for plans to participate in the missing participants program.

• A requirement to treat as ‘‘missing’’ non-responsive distributees with de minimis benefits subject to mandatory cash-out under the plan’s terms.

• More robust requirements for diligent searches, using sponsor and related plan records, free web-search methods, and (subject to waiver) commercial locator services (which would be clearly defined).

• Fewer benefit categories and fewer sets of actuarial assumptions for determining the amount to transfer to PBGC.

• Changes in the rules for paying benefits to missing participants and their beneficiaries.

An important part of all of the missing participants programs will be a new unified pension search database. This database would include information about missing participants and their benefits and a directory through which members of the public could easily query the database (using a choice of fields) to determine whether it contained information about benefits being held for them. PBGC anticipates that its new pension search database will provide a comprehensive, nationwide, authoritative, reliable, easy to use source of information about missing participants and the benefits being held for them.

‘‘Missing’’ would be defined more specifically than in the current regulation. As explained below, a distributee would be missing if—

(1) For a DB plan, the plan did not know where the distributee was (e.g., a notice from the plan was returned as undeliverable), unless the distributee’s benefit was subject to mandatory ‘‘cashout’’ under the terms of the plan, or

(2) For a DC plan, or a distributee whose benefit was subject to a mandatory cash-out under the terms of a DB plan, the distributee failed to elect a form or manner of distribution.

For DC plans, PBGC proposes to specify simply that a diligent search is one conducted in accordance with DOL guidance, the most recent of which was issued on August 14, 2014 by the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) in Field Assistance Bulletin No. 2014–01 regarding Fiduciary Duties And Missing Participants In Terminated Defined Contribution Plans (the FAB). The FAB provides guidance about required search steps and options for dealing with the benefits of missing participants in terminated DC plans.

PBGC is proposing to charge a one-time $35 fee per missing distributee, payable when benefit transfer amounts are paid to PBGC, without any obligation to pay PBGC continuing ‘‘maintenance’’ fees or a distribution fee. There would be no charge for amounts transferred to PBGC of $250 or less. There would be no charge for plans that only send information about missing participant benefits to PBGC.

More…

Overview of Proposed Expanded Missing Participants Program

Proposed Expanded Missing Participants Program FAQs

Read the Proposed Rule

Plan Administrator Bears Burden to Produce Key Information Regarding Claimant’s Service and Benefits Eligibility

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on April 21, 2016 that where a claimant has made a prima facie case that he is entitled to a pension benefit, but lacks access to the key information about corporate structure, or hours worked, needed to substantiate his claim, and the defendant controls this information, the burden shifts to the defendant to produce this information. Estate of Bruce H. Barton v. ADT Security Services Pension Plan (9th Cir., 2016).

The Plan Administrator could not place the burden of producing records establishing which entities participated in the pension plan between 1967 and 1986, and the claimant’s service record, on the claimant where the Plan Administrator had no records of its own.

The Plan Administrator originally denied the claim on the basis of an absence of records establishing eligibility for plan participation, actual participation, or accrual of plan benefits. This was wrong where the Committee rather than the claimant would likely be in possession of such records.

The lesson for Plan Administrators: keep plan documents,service records and contemporary records establishing benefit accruals forever -there is no practical document retention period for these documents.

The lesson for claimants: don’t be deterred from asserting a claim if you have enough evidence to state a prima facie case and the definitive documents or information ought to be in the Plan Administrator’s possession.

Estate of Bruce H. Barton v. ADT Security Services Pension Plan (9th Cir., 2016)