The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) is
allowing stakeholders more time to comment on lifetime income illustrations
given to participants in defined contribution (DC) retirement plans.
On
May 7, the DOL’s Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) issued an
advance notice of proposed rulemaking on lifetime income illustrations for DC
plan participants to provide an opportunity for stakeholders to give early
input into the development of regulations (see “DOL Seeks Comments About Lifetime Income Data”). The deadline for comments was
July 8.
The
EBSA has extended the comment period to August 7.
It’s
not the greatest news, and according to law firm Drinker, Biddle & Reath, the DOL has been turning
up the heat on service provider investigations. For a number of years it’s been
targeting registered investment advisers, and has also begun to target
broker/dealers and recordkeepers, the law firm said in a webinar presentation Wednesday.
According
to Drinker Biddle, the investigations seem to be part of the DOL’s ongoing Fiduciary Service Provider Compensation Project, whose purpose
is to focus on “the receipt of improper or undisclosed compensation by employee
benefit plan consultants and investment advisers.”
The main point is to make sure that plan fiduciaries and plan
participants receive comprehensive disclosure about service provider compensation
and conflicts of interest. The Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA)
will also conduct criminal investigations of potential fraud, kickback and
embezzlement involving advisers to plans and participants.
But
there are ways to survive, which Drinker Biddle, detailed in “Surviving DOL Service Provider
Investigations,” its webinar explaining the process and outlining some steps to
proceed prudently.
One
way that investigations of service providers arise is when the DOL is looking
into a retirement plan and finds an issue, and then moves over to the service
provider, noted Fred Reish, chair
of the Financial Services ERISA team, at Drinker, Biddle & Reath. “They found
problems in conflicts of interest, self-serving or self dealing areas,” Reish
said.
Get set for the
documentation request: lots and lots of it. Part of the investigation is the
request for documentation, typically a large quantity. Documents can range from
those that identify, list or schedule the company’s benefit plan clients. For
each client, they’ll want the name, employer identification number and address
of the plan sponsor; the name of the plan; the plan number; the dates of
services for the plan; the name or names of the plan trustee, investment
manager and custodian. (Note that for trustee, investment manager and custodian
there can be more than one name.)
The
DOL will ask for agreements executed by the provider that detail services provided
to employee benefit plan clients. More documents the provider will be asked
for: those that constitute or describe an agreement between the company or an
affiliate and an employee benefit plan client.
The
DOL will ask for information about how the plan’s assets were invested. These
documents can describe how advice about the value of securities or other
properties was rendered to the plan. They can also describe how recommendations
about the advisability of investing in, purchasing or selling securities or
other property were made.
Experience in handling these investigations
is important, Drinker Biddle advised. First, negotiate with the DOL the timing
of responding to the requests. Next, negotiate the volume of materials to be
provided. Then, “pre-audit” the materials to see what they are likely to show.
Consider requesting an administrative subpoena to attempt to contain the volume
of documentation.
Provide a Sample of Information
Bruce
Ashton, an attorney with Drinker,
Biddle & Reath, suggested that the service provider might want to ask the
DOL to issue an administration subpoena. He pointed out that this part of the request for documents is
looking for extremely detailed information on the plan. “In our
experience, we try to typically have the client put
together information as best it can, and then ask the DOL to select a sample
from the list,” Ashton said. “Then the client can put together more details
about that selected list, as opposed to every single client.”
For
a recordkeeper that could be tens of thousands of clients, Ashton said, and it
is unrealistic to expect the provider to provide this, or for the DOL to review
it. “Instead of two moving trucks of documents, try to get DOL to select a
sample and provide information on a reasonably small sample,” Ashton advised.
The firm made the following
observations about the DOL’s request for documents:
Deadline for producing documents
may be short;
Much of the information may not
be readily available;
Some types of documents may not
exist;
DOL requests tend to be
over-inclusive; and
Providers need to understand the
implications of the questions and the responses.