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.
The IRS deadline to file for a determination letter for an individually designed statutory hybrid plan is August 31, 2020. Statutory hybrid plans include cash balance plans, pension equity plans and certain other variable annuity plans. This deadline has not been extended under any recent IRS pandemic-related guidance.
Beginning in 2017, the IRS suspended the cyclic determination letter program for individually designed retirement plans. However, subsequent IRS guidance established a limited window for statutory hybrid plans to apply for a new determination letter.
In response to the current economic crisis caused by COVID-19, many companies are considering cost-savings measures to improve their companies’ financial stability. One such cost-saving option is the reduction or suspension of company contributions to a company’s 401(k) or 403(b) plan. The procedure for and the implications of such suspension will depend on the plan terms, including whether the contribution is intended to be a “safe harbor” contribution. Continue reading “Cutting Costs in a COVID-19 World – Reducing or Suspending Company Contributions to a 401(k) or 403(b) Plan”
Faegre Drinker and Multnomah Group held a roundtable discussion designed to provide practical advice on navigating employee benefits during the COVID-19 pandemic. Employers are dealing with remote work, layoffs, reduced hours, as well as determining how these changes will impact the operations of their employee benefit plans. Furthermore, with the passage of recent legislation such as the Families First Coronavirus Response Act and potential passage of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act, employers are faced with more challenges and changes.
The IRS Office of Chief Counsel recently issued a memorandum (https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-lafa/20200801f.pdf) that responded with a resounding “No” to the question of whether an employer shared responsibility payment (ESRP) imposed under Internal Revenue Code §4980H is subject to any statute of limitations on assessment.
The U.S. Supreme Court is poised for a flurry of ERISA-related activity this year, with four cases on the docket. The first decision out of this quartet came on January 14, 2020, when the Supreme Court remanded the closely watched Retirement Plans Committee of IBM v. Jander to the Second Circuit Court to consider issues that were not fully developed at the court of appeals.
In Jander, the plaintiffs were participants in IBM’s employee stock ownership plan (ESOP), which invested in IBM stock. The plaintiffs alleged that the ESOP fiduciaries’ failure to make early corrective disclosures about an incorrect business valuation was a breach of fiduciary duty that caused the IBM stock to drop significantly.
Severance arrangements generally provide for cash payments to an employee whose employment is involuntarily terminated and may include certain benefits, such as subsidized medical coverage and outplacement assistance.
Severance arrangements take a variety of forms. Formal severance plans often are used as a retention tool for employees across the board with no individual negotiations. In our experience, companies with formal severance plans typically treat them as ERISA plans.
In Pizzella v. Vinoskey, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia held that an independent fiduciary hired to represent the interests of participants in an employee stock ownership plan (the ESOP) engaged in a prohibited transaction and breached its fiduciary duties of prudence and loyalty in a $21 million transaction involving the ESOP’s purchase of stock from one of the company’s founders. The ESOP was awarded a $6.5 million judgment based on the amount that the Court determined the ESOP had overpaid for the stock. The Court held that the founder and independent fiduciary were jointly and severally liable for this judgment.