In Halo v. Yale Health Plan, decided in April of 2016, the Second Circuit expressly rejected the “substantial compliance” doctrine with respect to alleged violations of the ERISA Claims Procedure regulation. Instead, the Court held that, in order to preserve otherwise properly reserved discretionary authority, the decisionmaker must demonstrate that any deviation from the
Employee Benefit Issues to Keep You Awake at Night
Last week I made a presentation in the Omaha office of Jackson Lewis with the above title. I thought it might be helpful to outline the basic points of my presentation. The following items should keep you awake at night unless you can comfortably answer them:
- Does your employer have ERISA fiduciary insurance? If you
Pension Plan Suffers Cybersecurity Attack, ERISA Advisory Council Offers Cybersecurity Recommendations to DOL
It has been reported that infamous bank robber, Slick Willie Sutton, once said, “I rob banks because that’s where the money is.” Data thieves, understandably, have a similar strategy – go where the data is. The retail industry knows this as it has been a popular target for payment card data. The healthcare and certain
“Off the Rails:” A Plan Administrator’s Burden
When an ERISA plan provides the plan administrator with discretion to interpret the terms of the plan, the administrator’s claims and appeals decisions are generally reviewed by courts under a lenient standard of review such as “abuse of discretion.” In such cases, courts generally will not upset the plan administrator’s decision absent a clear error.
Will Your Forfeiture Account Disqualify Your 401(k) Plan?
In the last six months, several clients called me regarding substantial balances in a so-called “forfeiture account” in their 401(k) plans. A few of these clients have forfeiture accounts that violate the ERISA requirements. It is imperative that forfeitures be handled properly since both the IRS and the Department of Labor (DOL) on audit generally
Supreme Court: ERISA Plan Cannot Recover Settlement Funds That Have Been Spent
The U.S. Supreme Court has narrowed, ever so slightly, the ever-changing definition of “appropriate equitable relief” under ERISA Section 502(a)(3). In Montanile v. Board of Trustees of the National Elevator Industry Health Benefit Plan,[1] the high court addressed whether a plan fiduciary can recover medical payments made on behalf of a participant when
ERISA Claims Procedures For Disability Benefits To Get An ACA Make Over
The Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) of the Federal Department of Labor plans to publish on November 18, 2015, new claims procedures for adjudicating disability benefits designed to enhance existing procedures for those benefits under Section 503 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). EBSA’s goal is to apply to disability benefits many of
Are Employee Life Insurance Benefit Plans Worth the Risk of Litigation After CIGNA Corp. v. Amara?
Five years ago, Chief Justice Roberts observed: “People make mistakes. Even administrators of ERISA plans.” Conkright v. Frommert, 559 U.S. 506, 509 (2010). Four years ago, searching for a mechanism to provide monetary relief for such mistakes under ERISA, the Supreme Court reached into the desiccated maw of early 19th century trust law
THE RETROACTIVE AMENDMENT FIX FOR PLAN OPERATIONAL FAILURES
Frequently a plan sponsor’s operational failure to follow the terms of its 401(k) or other qualified plan can be corrected under the IRS’s Employee Plans Compliance Resolution System (“EPCRS”) (described at http://www.irs.gov/Retirement-Plans/EPCRS-Overview) with a retroactive amendment instead of a sometimes expensive financial correction. This possibility should not be surprising, given that the maintenance of
When a Deferred Compensation Plan Qualifies for “Top-Hat” Plan Status under ERISA
In a recent decision, Tolbert v. RBC Capital Markets Corp., _________ (S.D. Texas April 28, 2015), the district court wrestled with the question of how to determine whether a deferred compensation plan was a “top-hat” plan exempt from many of the substantive requirements of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”).
The Fifth Circuit previously