ML BeneBits

The amendments to the QPAM Exemption include a September 15, 2024 notification deadline that will apply to many asset managers. This blog post includes a brief summary of the US Department of Labor’s (DOL’s) recent technical amendments to the exemption.

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.

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.

This is the second in a multipart series on ML BeneBits 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, we discussed the general parameters of the rule and several threshold questions that it raises. In Part 2, we discuss 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.

On April 23, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) approved by a 3-2 vote a Final Rule that, if it becomes effective, will ban almost all noncompete clauses for nearly all workers. This is the first in a blog series exploring the fallout from the sweeping ban, specifically in terms of executive compensation and employee benefits. In Part 1, we address the first important threshold questions posed by the Final Rule. Future posts in the series will address the wide scope of the Final Rule and the types of executive compensation arrangements it prohibits; the types of arrangements that survive the Final Rule; and specific issues related to equity compensation, corporate transactions, Section 280G of the Internal Revenue Code (Code), and other compensation-related tax issues.

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is continuing its focus on disclosure of executive perquisites—and aircraft usage in particular—in registration statements, periodic reports, and proxy statements.

The US Department of Labor (DOL) final amendment to Prohibited Transaction Class Exemption 84-14, the so-called QPAM Exemption that is commonly relied upon by investment managers for ERISA-governed employee benefit plans and individual retirement accounts to avoid potential prohibited transaction issues, was published in the Federal Register on April 3, with the changes becoming effective on June 17, 2024.

US state and federal laws have increasingly sought to regulate environmental, social, and governance (ESG) investing—a trend that continued in 2023. This increased regulatory focus has impacted benefit plans, including ERISA plans and, especially, public retirement plans.

Anti-ESG state legislation continues to focus on public retirement plan investing and asset management. Over the last year, 18 states have proposed or adopted state legislation or regulation limiting the ability of the state government, including public retirement plans, to do business with entities that are identified as “boycotting” certain industries based on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria. Since our last update, four states have either adopted or proposed legislation or other forms of regulation that would restrict ESG activities using state assets.

A group of state treasurers and state attorneys general (AG) have raised concerns that certain environmental, social, and governance (ESG) features of certain fund disclosures and other marketing collateral could create liability under state Unfair, Deceptive, or Abusive Acts or Practices (UDAAP) and Anti-Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (Anti-BDS) laws. This is an issue that could impact government retirement plans and/or asset managers to public and private retirement plans.