Tyco Fiduciaries NOT Shielded by ERISA section 404(c)

The U.S. District Court fo the District of New Hampshire appears to be in line with the Department of Labor's position on the extent of protection offered by ERISA section 404(c). In a case against Tyco for offering company stock as an investment option in the plan, the district court held that Tyco could not used 404(c) as a defense for choosing poor investment options for the plan. The court in Tyco gave deference to the DOL's position.

(In re Tyco International Ltd. Multidistrict Litigation, D.N.H., No. 02-1335-PB)

Department of Labor Critical of Seventh Circuit Ruling

The Department of Labor spoke out against the ruling in the Seventh Circuit regarding ERISA section 404(c) regulations. Timothy Hauser of the DOL said that he was disappointed in the Seventh Circuit to failure to give deference to the DOL's definition of the word "control" in ERISA section 404(c). The Seventh Circuit held that participants had "control" over the investments and, therefore, ERISA section 404(c) shielded the fiduciaries from liability. In a nutshell, the participants alleged that the fiduciaries breached their duties by failing to informt he participants of the fees associated with the investments in their accounts. The DOL stated that it is the employer not the participant who "controls"the investment menu. It appears to be the DOL's position that since it is the employer choosing the investment line up within the plan, ERISA section 404(c) cannot shield the employer from choosing investments that have excessive fees. The Seventh Circuit did not agree.

The District Court of New Hampshire seems to be inline with the Department of Labor's view on this one. See next Blog regarding the Tyco Case.

Class Certified in Action against Lockheed Martin

Continuing the long line of cases regarding excessive 401(k) fees, 100,000 employees filed suit against Lockheed Martin claiming breach of fiduciary duty for failure to ensure that the employees were not harmed by the excessive fees charged by the plan providers. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois certified the class (Abbot v. Lockheed Martin Corp., S.D. Ill., No. 06-cv-0701-MJR). The court certified two of the three claims, the third being a claim for imprudently diluting the returns of the company stock funds. The court ruled there was a conflict between the parties in the class with regard to who had invested in the company stock funds.

Obama signs Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act

Obama signed the Fair Pay Act, which overrules the Supreme Court case of Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Inc., which limited the time for which pay discrimination claims could be brought. This new law is not just limited to salary, it also applies to payment under benefit plans. The full Bill can be found at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:h2831ih.txt.pdf

Is a Same Sex Former Married Partner Entitled to Pension Benefits in a Dissolution?

The Owens v. Automotive Machinists Pension Trust case below raises of question of whether the Ninth Circuit would recognize same sex married partners for purposes of dividing a qualified retirment plan in a divorce. If a same sex married partner, or former married partner, may be considered a "dependent" for purposes of meeting the definition of an Alternate Payee, perhaps a same sex married (or former married partner) would also be entitled to benefits pursuant to a QDRO in a partnership dissolution.

Owens v. Automotive Machinists Pension Trust, 551 F.3d 1138 (9th Cir. 2009). http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/01/12/0735253.pdf

Quasi-Marital Spouse Entitled to 50 percent of pension benefits

On January 12, 2009, in the case of Owens v. Automotive Machinists Pension Trust, the Ninth Circuit court of appeals affirmed the lower court's ruling that a quasi-marital partner is entitled to pension benefits pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO"). Norma and Phillip Owens lived together for 30 years but never married. The couple separate in 2004, and Norma sought half of Phillip's pension. Under ERISA, a person must meet the definition of an Alternate Payee in order to receive a portion of benefits from a qualified retirement pursuant to a QDRO. A person is an Alternate Payee if he or she is a spouse, former spouse, child or other dependent of the participant. Although ERISA does not recognize Norma as a spouse or former spouse, under the definition of Alternate Payee, the Ninth Circuit agreed with the lower court that Norma was a "dependent" who lived in the household with the taxpayer, and, therefore, met the definition of an Alternate Payee.

See full opinion at: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/01/12/0735253.pdf

Is your retirement plan protected from creditors?

KRAVITZ Retirement Plan News had a great article in the January/February 2009 issue regarding when qualified retirement plan assets are not protected from creditors. These reasons include federal tax levy, qualified domestic relations orders, and participant loans. Interestingly enough, even though the feds can get to your 401(k) or other qualified plan assets, the assets cannot be touched by a third party for restitution of a criminal act. Read more at: http://www.lkravitz.com/pubsarticles/documents/Jan-Feb.pdf