ESOPs Archives - Spotlight on Benefits

In Case You Missed It: Spotlight on Benefits – 2024 Winter

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.

ERISA Moments, Ep. 13: Rollover Recommendations Will Be Fiduciary Advice … And What About Withdrawals?

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.

Five Habits of the Healthy Health Plan 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.

Roth Employer Contributions

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.

In Case You Missed It: Spotlight on Benefits – Winter 2024

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.

IRS Announces 2024 Retirement Plan Limits

By Sarah Bassler Millar, Mark Rosenfeld, Dawn Sellstrom and Inés Sosa
The IRS recently announced the 2024 cost-of-living adjustments to various benefit and contribution limits applicable to retirement plans. The IRS modestly increased the applicable limits for 2024.

Introducing ERISA Moments: Bite-Size Vodcasts on the Latest ERISA Developments

By Fred Reish and Bradford Campbell
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.

When One Door Closes, Another Opens…Maybe Fourth Circuit Holds that Surcharge Is Not Equitable Relief Available Under ERISA but Paves the way for Unjust Enrichment Claims

By Rick Pearl
In an ERISA case for wrongful denial of health insurance benefits, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit addressed when a plaintiff may recover monetary relief under §§ 502(a)(1)(B) and (a)(3). The Fourth Circuit unsurprisingly held that ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B) limits recovery to benefits due under the terms of a plan, and a plaintiff cannot recover the cost of a denied surgery because the cost is not a “benefit” due; coverage for the cost, and payment to the provider, is the benefit. Unless a plaintiff pays the bill first, the plaintiff cannot recover the cost from an insurer.

When One Door Closes, Another Opens… Maybe. Fourth Circuit Holds That Surcharge Is Not Equitable Relief Available Under ERISA But Paves the way for Unjust Enrichment Claims

In an ERISA case for wrongful denial of health insurance benefits, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit addressed when a plaintiff may recover monetary relief under §§ 502(a)(1)(B) and (a)(3). The Fourth Circuit unsurprisingly held that ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B) limits recovery to benefits due under the terms of a plan, and a plaintiff cannot recover the cost of a denied surgery because the cost is not a “benefit” due; coverage for the cost, and payment to the provider, is the benefit. Unless a plaintiff pays the bill first, the plaintiff cannot recover the cost from an insurer.

The court’s discussion of the § 502(a)(3) claim was not so straight-forward, however, and ultimately much more important. The Fourth Circuit held that § 502(a)(3), which expressly permits only “appropriate equitable relief,” does allow some forms of monetary relief (traditionally thought of as legal, and not equitable), but prohibits others.

Continue reading “When One Door Closes, Another Opens… Maybe. Fourth Circuit Holds That Surcharge Is Not Equitable Relief Available Under ERISA But Paves the way for Unjust Enrichment Claims”

Thinking ESOPs: Fourth Circuit Narrows Equitable Relief Under ERISA

In Rose v. PSA Airlines, Inc., 80 F.4th 488 (4th Cir. 2023), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that ERISA § 502(a)(3), which permits a claim for “other appropriate equitable relief,” does not allow claims to recover money from a defendant’s general assets. This alert discusses the Rose decision and its potential impact on ESOP cases.

Continue reading “Thinking ESOPs: Fourth Circuit Narrows Equitable Relief Under ERISA”

Thinking ESOPs: Courts Desperately Need Contextual Clues in Disputes Over Enforceability of Arbitration Provisions

Enforcement of an ERISA plan’s arbitration provision has become a hotly litigated issue. Plaintiffs and courts often raise two objections to arbitration provisions in ERISA plans, including ESOPs. The first is whether participants or the plan itself consented to the arbitration provision. The second is whether class-action waiver language, which requires individualized arbitration, is enforceable under ERISA.

There have been several important ERISA arbitration decisions in recent years, including many involving ESOPs. Interestingly, these decisions suggest that courts are struggling with the same statutory-interpretation problems that courts struggle with when addressing a number of issues raised by ESOP litigation. Many key ERISA provisions are difficult, if not impossible, to interpret based solely on their express language. This is a real problem in ESOP litigation because many disputes turn on a court’s interpretation of the opaque ERISA provisions that are implicated by the disputes.

Continue reading “Thinking ESOPs: Courts Desperately Need Contextual Clues in Disputes Over Enforceability of Arbitration Provisions”

Thinking ESOPs: Sixth Circuit Enforces ERISA Exclusion in ESOP Trustee’s Insurance Policy

A recent Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals decision serves as a warning to policyholders: read your entire policy, understand each provision and confirm that the policy language accurately reflects your understanding of the coverage you purchased.

Navigating an insurance policy is not easy. A policy’s declarations, general terms, insuring agreements, definitions, exclusions, conditions and endorsements collectively set forth the scope of the policy’s coverage. With very rare exceptions, both the insurer and the policyholder will be bound by the language found in the policy. This is true even if the language in the policy is unfavorable to the policyholder and does not cover risks the policyholder was attempting to mitigate through insurance.

Continue reading “Thinking ESOPs: Sixth Circuit Enforces ERISA Exclusion in ESOP Trustee’s Insurance Policy”

Thinking ESOPs: Court Rejects DOL Claims of ESOP Overpayment

The board of directors of Bowers + Kubota Consulting, Inc. recently won an employee stock ownership plan (ESOP) fiduciary/breach case brought against them by the Department of Labor. See Walsh v. Bowers, et al., No. 1:18-cv-00155-SOM-WRP (D. Haw. Sept. 17, 2021). After a full trial on the merits, the district-court judge entered judgment in favor of the defendants, largely based on the court’s rejection of the DOL’s critiques of the valuation upon which the trustee relied. What is perhaps most interesting about the court’s decision is the contrast between the discussion in this case of fundamental ERISA and valuation concepts, on the one hand, and the discussion of fundamental ERISA and valuation concepts in two other cases in which courts entered judgment against the defendants.

Continue reading “Thinking ESOPs: Court Rejects DOL Claims of ESOP Overpayment”

ERISA Litigation Roundup: Seventh Circuit Weighs in on Arbitration and Class Waiver Provisions in Defined-Contribution Plans

On September 10, 2021, the Seventh Circuit decided Smith v. Board of Directors of Triad Manufacturing Inc., No. 20-2708, holding that benefit plans may require claimants to arbitrate claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq. (ERISA), but may not preclude claimants from obtaining relief that ERISA provides.

Triad Manufacturing, acting through its board of directors, established an employee stock ownership plan (Plan) in December 2015, when several of Triad’s largest shareholders (Selling Shareholders) sold all of their stock to the Plan. The Plan was a defined-contribution employee retirement plan governed by ERISA. Triad, acting through the Board, was the Plan’s sponsor, GreatBanc served as the Plan’s trustee and James Smith was a former Triad employee and a participant in the Plan. When the value of Triad’s stock dropped significantly in the weeks following the ESOP transaction, the value of Smith’s interest in the Plan decreased commensurately, eventually prompting Smith to sue.

Continue reading “ERISA Litigation Roundup: Seventh Circuit Weighs in on Arbitration and Class Waiver Provisions in Defined-Contribution Plans”

Thinking ESOPs: Enforceability of Arbitration Provisions — There Might Be More to the Analysis

Recently, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a plaintiff was required to request attorneys’ fees during an arbitration of an ERISA claims dispute. Having failed to do so, the plaintiff could not subsequently seek a fee award from the district court. The Sixth Circuit held that because the parties were obligated to arbitrate their ERISA disputes, the court’s jurisdiction was limited, and the parties were obligated to raise any remedy issues during the arbitration.

Continue reading “Thinking ESOPs: Enforceability of Arbitration Provisions — There Might Be More to the Analysis”

Thinking ESOPs: What the Supreme Court’s Decision in a 401(k) Fee Case Could Mean for ESOPs

The U.S. Supreme Court recently agreed to hear a challenge to the dismissal of an Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) 401(k) excessive fee case. The case involves a question about whether jury trials are appropriate in ERISA cases, but also a question about what an ERISA lawsuit must plead in order to survive a motion to dismiss, particularly when the lawsuit brings a claim for breach of fiduciary duty in managing a 401(k) plan’s fees and investment options. The 401(k) community is watching this case closely, and the employee stock ownership plan (ESOP) community also should pay close attention.

Continue reading “Thinking ESOPs: What the Supreme Court’s Decision in a 401(k) Fee Case Could Mean for ESOPs”