ML BeneBits

A recent ruling by the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit provides a valuable reminder for multiemployer pension funds and contributing employers regarding ERISA’s withdrawal liability notice and demand requirements. Specifically, the case presents a recap of what it means for a notice and demand to be provided “as soon as practicable” under ERISA Section 4219(b)(1) and the interplay of that timing requirement with common defenses raised for withdrawal liability demands that are allegedly less than timely.

Employers utilizing class-based criteria to exclude employees from retirement plan participation face new issues and considerations following the adoption of the long-term part-time employee (LTPTE) rules in SECURE 1.0 and SECURE 2.0. Employers who have not done so already may want to evaluate their plan's eligibility rules to determine whether any updates or clarifications may be desirable.

In connection with a merger, acquisition, or other corporate (M&A) transaction, buyers often face the dilemma of how to handle the seller’s existing retirement plans covering the continuing employees. Terminating a seller’s existing retirement plan can be complicated if the seller maintains a Savings Incentive Match Plan for Employees (SIMPLE) IRA plan because the “exclusive plan rule” under Section 408(p)(2)(D) of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) provides that a SIMPLE IRA plan may not be maintained for a calendar year if the employer maintains a qualified plan for that calendar year.

The backbone of a fiduciary’s duties is the written plan document: understanding the key terms and adhering to them provides a bulwark against fiduciary breach. ERISA Sections 402(a)(1) and 404(a)(1)(d) require that every employee benefit plan be established and maintained pursuant to a written instrument and that the plan be administered according to its written terms (note fiduciaries must follow a written plan document only to the extent it is consistent with ERISA.) Veering from the plan’s terms is generally a per se violation of ERISA. The key to avoiding a costly breach of fiduciary duty is to stick to the plan.

The US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recently issued final regulations implementing Section 1557 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which will restore and expand the scope of civil rights protections for patients.

Join Morgan Lewis lawyers this summer for programs on employee benefits and executive compensation.

This is the fourth part of a multi-part blog post series discussing the implications and fallout from the Final Rule recently adopted by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) banning the enforcement of almost all noncompete agreements with workers. In Part 1 of this series, we discussed the general parameters of the rule and several threshold questions that it raises. In Part 2, we discussed the types of arrangements that are prohibited by the Final Rule and the alternatives to noncompete clauses that likely remain available to companies following the effective date of the Final Rule. In Part 3, we discussed the impact of the Final Rule on noncompetition covenants entered into by sellers of a business, as well as the application of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) Section 280G golden parachute rules to noncompete covenants affected by the Final Rule.

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) recently extended relief with respect to certain post-death required minimum distributions (RMDs) under Internal Revenue Code Section 401(a)(9).

The US Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Civil Rights (OCR) published its Final Rule titled HIPAA Privacy Rule to Support Reproductive Health Care Privacy in the Federal Register on April 26, 2024.

This is the third part of a multi-part blog post series discussing the implications and fallout from the Final Rule recently adopted by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), banning the enforcement of almost all noncompete agreements with workers. In Part 1 of this series, we discussed the general parameters of the rule and several threshold questions that it raises. In Part 2, we discussed the types of arrangements that are prohibited by the Final Rule and the alternatives to noncompete clauses that likely remain available to companies following the effective date of the Final Rule.