Seyfarth Synopsis: The DOL updated its voluntary fiduciary correction program (“VFCP”) which was introduced over 20 years ago to allow plan sponsors to corrected enumerated fiduciary breaches. The amended VFCP now allows for self-correction of the failure to timely remit contributions and loan repayments withheld from participants’ salary to the plan.
The prior VFCP required
Seyfarth Synopsis: Over the years, plan sponsors and administrators have wrestled with the question of what to do with the accounts of participants who left employment years earlier and cannot now be located. Notwithstanding their best efforts, plans continue to maintain accounts of participants who are either missing or unresponsive to plan correspondence (“missing participants”). On January 14, 2025, the DOL issued Field Assistance Bulletin (FAB) 2025-01 that allows sponsors and administrators of ongoing defined contribution (DC) plans to transfer unclaimed small accounts to a state unclaimed property fund of the participant’s last known address provided the fund satisfies certain requirements.
The issue of what to do with the accounts of missing participants is an age-old question. In 2014 the DOL issued FAB 2014-01, stating that an IRA was the preferred destination for unclaimed defined contribution (DC) plan accounts. That same FAB also acknowledged that IRAs may not be available for terminating DC plans, and suggested that in certain circumstances, a state unclaimed property fund or an interest-bearing FDIC-insured bank account might also be appropriate. More recently, the DOL became concerned that IRAs may not be the sole (or even most) appropriate destination for unclaimed plan accounts, as IRAs charge fees that often exceed the investment returns of small accounts, resulting in the account being eaten away by fees. In fact, when plan sponsors started looking to IRAs as the destination of its unclaimed account balances, the sponsors found it challenging to find an IRA provider who would accept all accounts, particularly small accounts, and that the limited choices resulted in front end, back end, and/or annual fees that would quickly exhaust the account balance. From the fiduciary perspective, many plan fiduciaries were reluctant to make such transfers. As time passed, however, more IRA providers became available and fees dropped. But not necessarily to zero.Continue Reading Missing Participants – What to do With Abandoned Accounts
Seyfarth Synopsis: Orders issued by the Eastern District of Texas on Thursday July 25 and the Northern District of Texas on Friday July 26 indefinitely delayed the September 23, 2024 effective date of the Department of Labor’s revised regulation defining when a party becomes an “investment advice” fiduciary (the “New Fiduciary Rule”) and amendments to seven related prohibited transaction exemptions (“PTEs”).
In Federation of Americans for Consumer Choice v. Department of Labor (the “FACC Case”), the plaintiffs, a trade group representing the insurance industry, whose mission is “to promote a level playing field for independent insurance professionals by advocating and influencing practices, regulations, and legislation that foster consumer choice” and certain insurance professionals who are members of FACC, challenged the New Fiduciary Rule and amendments to PTE 84-24 (“PTE 84-14 Amendments”) under the Administrative Procedures Act (the “APA”). The plaintiffs moved for a stay of the effective date of New Fiduciary Rule and the PTE 84-24 Amendments, or a preliminary injunction prohibiting enforcement of the New Fiduciary Rule and PTE 84-24 Amendments, while the FACC Case is pending.Continue Reading Two Texas District Courts Issue Orders Delaying the Effective Date of DOL Fiduciary Rule and Related Amendments to Seven Prohibited Transaction Exemptions
In this episode, Richard and Sarah are joined by Ian Morrison, a Partner in Seyfarth’s ERISA Litigation group to delve into a new line of cases alleging that forfeitures are plan assets, and must be used to benefit plan participants. The plaintiffs in these cases are claiming that using forfeitures to offset employer contributions
Seyfarth Synopsis: The agencies have finalized a portion of their proposed rules impacting so-called “junk insurance” regarding short-term limited-duration insurance, but deferred finalizing the more significant changes that would have impacted most fixed indemnity policies.
In early April 2024, the Treasury Department, Department of Labor, and Health and Human Services (the “agencies”) issued final rules regarding short-term limited-duration insurance (STLDI). Avid readers of this blog may recall our earlier post on the proposed rules, found here, which impacted STLDI as well as other issues surrounding excepted benefits. The new final rules primarily address the STLDI portion of the proposed rules, and generally adopt them as proposed. Aside from a new notice requirement, the agencies delayed finalizing the rules on fixed indemnity insurance, but warned that the delay should not be an endorsement of the abusive practices that have emerged in this space.Continue Reading Agencies Defer Final Action on Junk Insurance, While Suggesting Caution Against One Last “Binge”
On October 31, 2023, the Department of Labor (“DOL”) issued its latest attempt at revising the rules regarding when investment professionals who provide “investment advice” to employee benefit plans or plan participants are a fiduciary under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”). This proposed rule represents the most recent bid by the
Seyfarth Synopsis: New rules change the method of counting participants for Form 5500 purposes, possibly both eliminating audits and allowing use of the abbreviated Form 5500-SF.
On February 23, 2023, the Department of Labor released its changes to the 2023 Form 5500 filing instructions. Among the changes was a modification of the participant counting
Seyfarth Synopsis: Plans have been scrambling to gather data and work with providers in preparation for the December 27, 2022 deadline to report prescription drug and health care spending information. Just in time for the holidays, the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Treasury (the “Departments”) have issued FAQs related to Prescription Drug
‘Missing’ or lost participants often raise a handful of legal and administrative issues for plan sponsors. The lack of definitive guidance has led to confusion for plan sponsors in deciding what to do about missing participants. While the IRS and DOL have their own separate concerns, both agencies are concerned and likely to inquire about
Termination of employment is a distribution event under many retirement plans, and particularly under individual account defined contribution plans. But what does it mean to terminate employment? Is there such a thing as a “sham” termination? It’s an important question for plans sponsors to consider before distributing a retirement benefit following the plan participant’s departure