Take a quick dive into the exciting world of ERISA with Faegre Drinker benefits and executive compensation attorneys Fred Reish and Brad Campbell. In this quick-hit series of updates, Fred and Brad offer a high-level view of current trends and recent ERISA developments. See the newest episode, DOL’s Rules Are Stayed: What Remains in Their Place?, below.
Continue reading “ERISA Moments Ep. 26: DOL’s Rules Are Stayed: What Remains in Their Place?”
On April 26, 2024, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a Final Rule updating certain Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) privacy rules with respect to the disclosure of protected health information (PHI) related to reproductive health care. Essentially, the Final Rule prohibits a covered entity from using or disclosing PHI to conduct criminal, civil or administrative investigations, or to impose corresponding liability on a person seeking or providing lawful reproductive health care.
Reproductive health care is broadly defined as “health care that affects the health of the individual in all matters relating to the reproductive system and to its functions and processes.” The preamble provides a non-exhaustive list of examples, including contraception, fertility and infertility treatments, and pregnancy-related care.
In an August 2, 2024, decision in Pizarro v. The Home Depot, Inc., No. 22-13643 (11th Cir. Aug. 2, 2024), the Eleventh Circuit reaffirmed its position — and the position of the majority of federal circuit courts to address the issue — on the burden of proving loss causation for purposes of an ERISA claim for fiduciary breach. Loss causation is an element of a plaintiff’s claim for damages because of a breach of fiduciary duty, and the plaintiff bears the burden of proving causation of loss.
Pizarro involves claims by a putative class of Home Depot employees (Plaintiffs) who participated in Home Depot’s 401(k) plan. Plaintiffs alleged that the plan had excessive fees and imprudent investment options, but the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia granted summary judgment in Home Depot’s favor because Plaintiffs could not prove that they suffered any losses caused by a fiduciary’s alleged breach. To make such a showing, Plaintiffs would have to prove that a hypothetical “prudent” fiduciary would have not made the same choices that the defendants made. The District Court held that Home Depot’s investment decisions were “objectively prudent,” whether or not those decisions resulted from the right process, and thus Plaintiffs could not prove damages.
The stay of the new DOL fiduciary rule will remain in effect until the lawsuits challenging the rule are decided and appeals are resolved. This litigation process is likely to take several years. In the meantime, the fiduciary status of advisors and agents will be measured under the current regulation’s five-part test. However, in some cases the application of that test could result, as this article explains, in apparent one-time recommendations being deemed to satisfy the five-part test. As a result, advisors, agents and their firms should carefully consider where fiduciary status for retirement accounts may apply and, in those cases, should consider complying with the conditions of an applicable prohibited transaction exemption.
To view the full alert, visit the Faegre Drinker website.
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has issued final regulations for required minimum distributions (RMDs) from certain retirement plans, including tax-qualified plans, Internal Revenue Code (Code) section 403(b) plans, individual retirement accounts (IRAs) and Code section 457(b) eligible deferred compensation plans. The regulations implement changes put into law by the Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement Act of 2019 (SECURE Act) and the SECURE 2.0 Act of 2022 (SECURE 2.0).
The final regulations apply for distribution calendar years beginning on or after January 1, 2025. However, as some of the RMD changes addressed in the final regulations already have taken effect in accordance with the effective dates set forth in the SECURE Act and SECURE 2.0, plan sponsors should review current plan operations for compliance.
Continue reading “Final Regulations Issued on Required Minimum Distributions Under SECURE Act”
Today, employees are more likely than ever to seek new employment opportunities and change jobs. These employees may leave a company before becoming fully vested in their qualified retirement plan benefits – which may result in forfeiture of their unvested benefits. What is a retirement plan sponsor supposed to do with the forfeited amount? More importantly, what is the plan sponsor allowed to do with these forfeited amounts? This is an important question, as the use of forfeitures can raise compliance questions under both ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code requirements for qualified retirement plans.
For defined contribution retirement plans, such as 401(k) plans, the IRS has typically allowed plan sponsors to apply forfeitures to offset administrative expenses or reduce employer contributions. In proposed regulations, issued in February 2023, the IRS reiterates this position, indicating that defined contribution plan forfeitures may be used to offset plan administrative expenses or reduce employer contributions, or may be reallocated to participants pursuant to a nondiscriminatory formula.
Continue reading “IRS Proposed Regulations for Plan Forfeitures”
Take a quick dive into the exciting world of ERISA with Faegre Drinker benefits and executive compensation attorneys Fred Reish and Brad Campbell. In this quick-hit series of updates, Fred and Brad offer a high-level view of current trends and recent ERISA developments. See the newest episode, The Fiduciary Rules and the Impact on Advisors and Insurance Agents, below.
Take a quick dive into the exciting world of ERISA with Faegre Drinker benefits and executive compensation attorneys Fred Reish and Brad Campbell. In this quick-hit series of updates, Fred and Brad offer a high-level view of current trends and recent ERISA developments. See the newest episode, The Final Fiduciary Regulation and Exemptions Explained, below.
Continue reading “ERISA Moments Ep. 24: The Final Fiduciary Regulation and Exemptions Explained”
Take a quick dive into the exciting world of ERISA with Faegre Drinker benefits and executive compensation attorneys Fred Reish and Brad Campbell. In this quick-hit series of updates, Fred and Brad offer a high-level view of current trends and recent ERISA developments. See the newest episode, ERISA Litigation Odds and Ends: ESG, Crypto and Forfeitures, below.
Continue reading “ERISA Moments Ep. 23: ERISA Litigation Odds and Ends: ESG, Crypto and Forfeitures”
Written by members of Faegre Drinker’s benefits and executive compensation team, this blog features analysis and information on matters related to retirement plans, health and welfare plans, ESOPs, fiduciary governance, and other benefits issues.
This quarterly digest provides links to our most popular posts during the past few months so that you can catch up on what you missed or re-read them.
By Bradford Campbell and Fred Reish
We’re looking at the DOL’s fiduciary proposal and the prohibited transaction exemptions associated with it. In this episode, Fred and Brad are talking about rollovers. The proposed definition of fiduciary advice basically says that a one-time investment recommendation can result in an adviser or insurance agent becoming a fiduciary.
By Kendra L. Roberson
As it is often said, “the only constant in the world is constant change.” So it is important for health plan fiduciaries to periodically review the fundamentals for consistency and compliance to avoid risk and costly mistakes. We provide a health plan fiduciary checklist — with five actions that health plan fiduciaries can take to help keep an organization safe and successful.
By Doug Heffernan and Mark Rosenfeld
On December 20, 2023, the IRS issued Notice 2024-2, which provides question-and-answer guidance on various aspects of the SECURE 2.0 Act. This post focuses on the ability to make employer contributions (match or nonelective) as Roth contributions under SECURE 2.0 Act, Section 604.
