Heads California, Tails Carolina… Employer Considerations Following Wave of 401(k) Forfeiture Lawsuits

/in , , , , , , , ,

by Alex Smith

Over the past year, numerous employers and their 401(k) plan fiduciaries have faced lawsuits regarding how forfeited employer contributions to their 401(k) plan are utilized.  This wave of lawsuits began approximately a year ago when a plaintiff’s law firm filed putative class action lawsuits raising this novel claim against multiple large employers, including Intuit, Clorox, and Thermo Fisher Scientific in California federal courts.  Since then, this claim has been included in numerous 401(k) plan lawsuits even though none of these lawsuits have reached a final judgment on the merits and only five have had decisions on motions to dismiss.

These lawsuits allege that the employer and its 401(k) plan fiduciaries breached their fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (“ERISA”), by using forfeited employer contributions to the 401(k) plan to offset future employer contributions instead of using the forfeited amounts to offset 401(k) plan expenses that were charged to participant accounts.  The plaintiff’s counsel alleges that the employer and 401(k) plan fiduciaries are violating ERISA’s fiduciary requirements to make decisions for the benefit of plan participant because the employer benefits from a reduction in its future employer contributions at the expense of plan participants who have to pay for certain expenses that are charged to their 401(k) accounts. Read more

Hole in the Bottle… Employer Considerations After Another Lawsuit Against an Employer Health Plan

/in , , , , , ,

by Alex Smith

Last week, former Wells Fargo employees filed a class action lawsuit against Wells Fargo and its health plan fiduciaries alleging that Wells Fargo’s self-funded health plan violated ERISA by paying its pharmacy benefits manager (PBM) excessive administrative fees and excessive fees for prescription drugs. This lawsuit appears to be similar to a lawsuit filed against Johnson & Johnson and its health plan fiduciaries earlier this year. Both lawsuits allege that the health plan paid its PBM exponentially more for certain prescription drugs than the price charged by certain retail pharmacies for the same drugs. Coincidentally, both lawsuits indicate the health plans are funded through a voluntary employees’ beneficiary association (VEBA) trust. See our prior blog post for more information on the heightened health plan fiduciary standards that may be driving these lawsuits. Read more

Go Your Own Way (Or Maybe Not): New Heightened Fiduciary Standards are Coming to Group Health Plans

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

by Bret Busacker

There has been a shift taking place in ERISA litigation and compliance that could significantly impact group health plan fiduciary requirements. We anticipate group health plan fiduciary standards will evolve along the same lines as what occurred in the 401(k) industry after the ERISA 408(b)(2) rules became effective in 2012.

401(k) plans for years have been subject to fee disclosure and relatively well-defined fiduciary standards of conduct. Much of the improvement in 401(k) fiduciary practices over the past decade can be attributed to the ERISA 401(k) fee disclosure requirements that went into effect in 2012 under ERISA 408(b)(2) and the resulting fee litigation fueled by the ERISA 408(b)(2) fee disclosure rules. As a result of the ERISA 408(b)(2) and the related litigation, employers and plan fiduciaries, often with the aid of counsel, have become significantly more proficient in monitoring fees and negotiating agreements with 401(k) plan TPAs and investment service providers.

The Consolidated Appropriations Act (CAA) in 2021 extended the ERISA 408(b)(2) fee disclosure requirements to group health plans. Based on what took place in the 401(k) industry after 2012 when the ERISA 408(b)(2) disclosure went into effect, we anticipate the ERISA 408(b)(2) fee disclosure requirement, now also applicable to group health plans, will make it easier for plan participants to bring breach of fiduciary duty claims against employer and plan fiduciaries. There are already several such cases currently making their way through the courts.

In addition to the ERISA 408(b)(2) fee disclosure requirement, group health plan fiduciaries now have a better line of sight into the structure and economics of their group health plans than ever before. This insight comes in the form of a series of new disclosure requirements that require plans to obtain and publish network and out of network payment rates, and to report plan drug and service cost information to HHS. Further, the CAA now requires employers to prepare periodic reports demonstrating compliance with the Mental Health Parity rules. These new rules give employers and plan fiduciaries unprecedented leverage with their service providers through increased transparency and improved awareness of the structure and economics of their group health plans.

With this greater knowledge and understanding comes more risk of criticism that an employer or plan fiduciary could have looked closer—and should have looked closer—at fees and plan design in carrying out their fiduciary responsibilities. We think these new group health plan transparency and disclosure rules will drive new litigation against group health plan fiduciaries similar to what occurred in the retirement plan industry after ERISA 408(b)(2) became effective for 401(k) plans.

Employers and plan fiduciaries should be considering now how to formalize appropriate compliance structures to ensure that reasonable fiduciary standards are being applied to group health plan administration. Our general recommendation is to adopt similar group health plan governance structures and practices that are now common in 401(k) plan administration. These governance structures may take on different forms than what we see in the 401(k) industry, but employers should be thinking now how best to match step with the shifting fiduciary standards applicable to group health plans.

Should’ve Been a Cowboy, Court Inflicts Pain on Health Plan Sponsor After Participant Kicked by Bull

/in , , , , ,

by Alex Smith

A recent decision by a federal district court in Ohio in a health plan benefits dispute highlights the importance for health plan fiduciaries to properly review benefit claim denials to ensure that the claims administrator’s basis for denial is appropriate and that the claims administrator has properly considered information provided by the participant.

In this case, the participant sued after he was denied coverage for more than $100,000 of medical bills related to a broken ankle suffered when he was kicked by his bull calf. Even though the participant worked as an HVAC division manager, the health plan’s third-party administrator denied the claims based on the plan’s exclusion for on-the-job injuries because the participant owned a cattle farm from which he sold beef. The court ruled that the participant was entitled to coverage for his medical expenses because the health plan fiduciaries had the burden of demonstrating the plan exclusion applied. Read more

I’ve Been Trying to Get Down to the Heart of the Matter – the Board Action

/in , ,

by John Ludlum

If you ever want to see a benefits lawyer get nervous, start talking about corporate intent.  Yes, the company intended to grant options at an earlier and lower exercise price, and yes it may have made promises to the individuals who would receive the awards; everybody seems to be in agreement. But there may be inadequate documentation, or worse, none at all, and the tax implications have to be considered. The foundation for any equity grant will be corporate action, and the experienced perspective is that if there is doubt about the corporate action, it will be hard to defend.

The Incentive Stock Option (“ISO”) regulations and the Code Section 409A regulations (“Section 409A”) both provide guidance on when an equity grant is actually made for the purposes of those Code Sections. For ISOs, the “date or time when the granting corporation completes the corporate action” constituting an offer under the terms of a statutory option which is not considered complete until the maximum number of shares and the minimum price are fixed or determinable. For Section 409A, the date when the “granting corporation completes the corporate action” necessary to create a legally binding right to the option which is not complete until the date on which the maximum number of shares and the minimum exercise price are fixed or determinable, and the class of underlying stock and the identity of the service provider are designated. Obviously, the regulations have similarities, but the common and essential element is the requirement for a corporate action. Read more

The Time Has Come, A Fact’s A Fact: Consider Adding a Welfare Plan Committee

/in , , , , , , , , ,

by Brenda Berg

The time may have come to add a welfare plan committee to your company’s governance of employee benefit plans. New legal obligations and other developments impose fiduciary risks for welfare plans similar to what already exist for retirement plans.

Most employers that sponsor a 401(k) plan or other retirement plan set up a committee to administer and oversee the plan. This is generally a best practice to ensure that the plan is properly administered in compliance with employee benefits laws and, for plans subject to the Employee Retirement Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), to have a process for following ERISA fiduciary duties. Fiduciary duties include acting prudently and in the best interests of participants, such as in overseeing service providers and monitoring plan fees. Read more

Better Hide the Wine … Employer Considerations as the DOL Doubles Down on Mental Health Parity Compliance in New Proposed Regulations

/in , , , , , , ,

by Alex Smith

The Department of Labor (DOL), the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and the Department of Treasury (collectively, the Departments) recently issued proposed Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA) regulations and their second joint report to Congress regarding their MHPAEA enforcement activities as required under the MHPAEA and the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (CAA).

In addition, the DOL issued Technical Release 2023-01P, requesting comments on potential data requirements related to non-quantitative treatment limitations (NQTLs) and network composition. The proposed regulations and Technical Release indicate that employers can expect increased compliance obligations related to NQTLs and the NQTL comparative analysis reporting and disclosure requirements established by the CAA. For additional information about the CAA’s MHPAEA NQTL comparative analysis reporting and disclosure requirements, please see our blog posts from 2022 and 2021. Read more

Should I Pay Or Should I No(t) Now: Which Expenses Can be Paid with Plan Assets?

/in , , , , , , , ,

by Brenda Berg

One question that often comes up is whether an expense related to an ERISA plan can be paid with plan assets. The decision of whether to use ERISA plan assets to pay an expense is an ERISA fiduciary decision. With the recent IRS guidance clarifying the timing of use of forfeitures, this question may come up even more.[1] Using plan assets inappropriately is a fiduciary breach and subject to possible DOL and IRS penalties. It is important to have a fiduciary process in place for reviewing expenses and determining whether a payment is proper. Read more

It Doesn’t Have To Be That Way: Negotiating Good Service Provider Agreements Is More Important than Ever

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

by Bret F. Busacker

It may be an understatement to say that compliance with benefit plan laws and regulations is becoming increasingly more complicated. In my experience, the COVID era has brought about some of the widest-sweeping changes on the burden of administering benefit plans in some time.

There has been major evolution around service provider fee disclosure, DOL reporting and disclosure on mental health parity and disclosure of plan costs, new claims procedure rights, expanded expectations around Cyber Security protections, and expansion of the use of ESG and crypto currency (and on-again, off-again regulatory efforts). Read more

What Happens In A Small Town Stays In A Small Town … Until The Tenth Circuit Rejects ERISA Arbitration Provision

/in , , , , , , ,

by Alex Smith

While case law regarding the enforceability of arbitration provisions in ERISA retirement plans has been mixed, since the Ninth Circuit’s 2019 decision in Dorman v. Charles Schwab Corp. enforcing a 401(k) plan’s arbitration provision, some employers and plan sponsors have given increased consideration to adding arbitration provisions to their retirement plans based on that decision and the proliferation of class action ERISA lawsuits.  However, following the Tenth Circuit’s February 9 decision in Harrison v. Envision Management Holding, Inc. Board, which appears to be the first time the Tenth Circuit considered the issue, employers based in the Tenth Circuit’s jurisdiction (Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming) may want to think twice before adding an arbitration provision to their plans.

Read more