Being asked to draft (or review) an executive employment agreement is a common occurrence for attorneys specializing in many practice areas (e.g., corporate, employment, healthcare, etc.). This presentation identifies compensation features in an executive employment agreement that should be reviewed by an Executive Compensation attorney. Failure to consider IRS rules when drafting employment agreements with these compensation features can lead to headaches down the road. The COVID-19 pandemic has given us all enough headaches. Do not let an employment agreement create another one – call your friendly Executive Compensation attorney when drafting or reviewing executive employment agreements.
In our May 2020 client alert, we addressed the possibility that COVID-19 layoffs could inadvertently cause a partial termination of a company’s qualified retirement plan. Recently issued IRS guidance provides that if participating employees whose employment was terminated due to COVID-19 are rehired by the end of 2020, the IRS generally will not deem a partial plan termination to have occurred. However, rehiring employees by the end of 2020 will not guarantee that employers will avoid a partial plan termination.
The Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement (SECURE) Act included several provisions related to lifetime income strategies under retirement plans, including a requirement that pension benefit statements for defined contribution plans disclose the “lifetime income stream equivalent” of each participant’s current account balance – both as a single life annuity (SLA) and as a qualified joint and survivor annuity (QJSA). On August 18, 2020, the Department of Labor (Department) issued an interim final rule implementing this requirement that includes a model disclosure and assumptions for converting benefits (the Rule), and a fact sheet.
As background, under ERISA, administrators of defined contribution plans (such as 401(k) and 403(b) plans) are required to provide pension benefit statements quarterly if the plan allows participant-directed investment, otherwise annually. Among other requirements, the benefit statements must include the participant’s current account balance.
Ever since the Supreme Court’s decision in Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer, 573 U.S. 409 (2014), plaintiffs’ attorneys have been trying to crack the code for pleading an ERISA duty-of-prudence claim against fiduciaries of employee stock ownership plans (ESOPs) following a drop in the company’s stock price. Those attempts have been largely unsuccessful, with the notable exception of Jander v. Retirement Plans Committee of IBM, 910 F.3d 620 (2d Cir. 2018), vacated and remanded, 140 S. Ct. 592, reinstated, 962 F.3d 85 (2d Cir. 2020). When the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Jander, many ERISA lawyers expected the Court to clarify how a plaintiff could satisfy the Dudenhoeffer standard while still preventing meritless stock-drop claims. But as it often does, the Supreme Court ducked the issue and remanded the case without addressing the merits.