ML BeneBits

The US Department of Labor recently issued Field Assistance Bulletin (FAB) 2025-01, a temporary enforcement policy regarding the transfer of small retirement plan benefits to state unclaimed property funds. This development is part of the agency’s broader effort to help fiduciaries fulfill their obligations under ERISA to ensure participants and beneficiaries are located and receive their retirement benefits.

Temporary Enforcement Policy

As we noted in our previous LawFlash, the DOL was directed under SECURE 2.0 to establish a Retirement Savings Lost and Found to allow a participant (or beneficiary) to search for contact information for plan administrators of plans in which the participant (or beneficiary) may have a benefit. The DOL ultimately did establish a searchable Retirement Savings Lost and Found database, but submission of information to the database remains voluntary, and its utility remains questionable.

The FAB represents another step—one that will be much more useful—in helping participants (and beneficiaries) locate and obtain their plan benefits. Under the FAB, and pending the DOL’s issuance of further guidance, the DOL indicates that it will not pursue violations of fiduciary duties related to the transfer of benefits with a present value of $1,000 or less (including uncashed checks) owed to a missing participant (or beneficiary) to an eligible state unclaimed property fund provided that certain conditions set forth in the FAB are satisfied.

For purposes of determining whether the present value of a benefit does not exceed the $1,000 threshold, the fiduciary is directed to disregard any plan loans but to include any rollover contributions to the plan.

In order to qualify for relief provided by the FAB, the plan fiduciary must satisfy the following conditions:

• The fiduciary must have determined that the transfer to a state unclaimed property fund is prudent for the benefit owed to the participant or beneficiary.
• The fiduciary must have implemented a prudent program for locating missing participants consistent with DOL’s Missing Participants – Best Practices for Pension Plans (on which we previously wrote).
• The state unclaimed property fund that is selected must be the one offered by the state of the participant’s (or beneficiary’s) last known address.
• The plan’s summary plan description must describe the transfer of the benefits of missing participants (or beneficiaries) to a state unclaimed property fund, and the summary plan description must also identify the name, address, and phone number of a plan contact who can answer questions about where the funds may be transferred.
• The state unclaimed property fund must qualify as an “eligible state fund,” meaning it
  • acts as custodian and allow claims to be made in perpetuity, regardless of when the funds are received by the state;
  • must not charge any fees or other charges that will result in the payment of less than 100% of the amount transferred to the state fund;
  • has a free, searchable website that reliably shows the name of the participant or beneficiary and plan name and permits electronic claims;
  • provides an ability to make inquiries by physical mail, electronic mail, and telephone;
  • “participates in the National Association of Unclaimed Property Administrators’ MissingMoney.com website or a similar non-commercial unclaimed property database operated under the auspices of the National Association of State Treasurers, Inc.”;
  • affords a streamlined process for small claims of $1,000 or less;
  • diligently searches, at least annually, for updated addresses of participants and beneficiaries who are owed more than $50 and provides written notice to the owner that the state is holding the individual’s money upon obtaining an updated address;
  • allows the plan to pay the participant or beneficiary directly and obtain reimbursement of transferred amounts from the state; and
  • “participates in the States’ Unclaimed Property Clearing House, as operated by the National Association of State Treasurers, Inc.”

A plan fiduciary can rely on a representation from the state treasurer that a fund is an eligible state fund unless the fiduciary has actual knowledge to the contrary.

Observations

This guidance may be particularly helpful in the context of uncashed checks (e.g., amounts that have been involuntarily distributed or trailing distributions that go uncashed). However, plan fiduciaries should think carefully and consult with counsel about whether escheatment makes sense under various scenarios. It may also take some time for state treasurers to prepare to make the necessary representations, or for plan fiduciaries to conduct the necessary diligence if these representations are not available.

How We Can Help

Morgan Lewis lawyers stand ready to assist plan fiduciaries and administrators on questions related to missing participants and uncashed checks and application of the FAB.

If you need assistance with any of the above or have any other questions on the FAB, please contact your Morgan Lewis contact(s).

In many situations, practitioners recommend establishing a fiduciary committee to oversee ERISA-covered employee benefit plans. There are several reasons for this, including providing a well-defined process for decision-making; bringing together a diverse team with a wide set of experience to address issues relevant to the benefit plan’s administration; managing the investment, legal compliance, and operational risks that can arise in a complex regulatory landscape; and establishing clear separation between plan sponsor and fiduciary roles.

In 2017, several private universities were hit with ERISA class actions alleging various breaches of fiduciary duty and prohibited transactions—including claims that these universities’ defined contribution plans charged unreasonable recordkeeping costs. One such university was Cornell in the case of Cunningham v. Cornell University.

The US Department of Labor (DOL) issued a press release on September 6, 2024 reminding ERISA plan fiduciaries that it considers cybersecurity to be an area of “great concern” and emphasizing that it continues to investigate potential cybersecurity-related ERISA violations. The press release accompanied guidance updating the DOL’s 2021 cybersecurity subregulatory guidance and, most significantly, clarifying that the 2024 updates apply to all types of ERISA plans, including health and welfare plans. In our view, this clarification now aligns the DOL’s cybersecurity guidance with the position it has taken in investigations and public statements.

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.

In Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless Inc. v Department of Commerce, the Supreme Court held that both the United States’ constitutional structure and the Administrative Procedure Act preclude a court from deferring to administrative agencies when they interpret ambiguous statutory text. Instead, the court must assess the “best meaning” of the statute using traditional tools of statutory construction.

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.

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.

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