Plan Sponsors Using PBGC Lump-Sum Assumptions May See Changes

The agency has issued proposed rules on Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans and Allocation of Assets in Single-Employer Plans, as well as the assumptions PBGC uses to determine de minimis lump sum benefits in PBGC-trusteed terminated single-employer defined benefit (DB) pension plans.

The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) has issued two proposed rules related to benefit payments.

One addresses Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans and Allocation of Assets in Single-Employer Plans, and the other concerns the assumptions PBGC uses to determine de minimis lump sum benefits in PBGC-trusteed terminated single-employer defined benefit (DB) pension plans.

Want the latest retirement plan adviser news and insights? Sign up for PLANADVISER newsletters.

Proposed changes to PBGC’s regulations on Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans and Allocation of Assets in Single-Employer Plans would make clarifications and codify policies involving payment of lump sums, changes to benefit form, partial benefit distributions, and valuation of plan assets.

Major provisions of the proposed rule would:

  • Clarify that PBGC’s rules on payment of a lump sum are unaffected by election of a lump-sum distribution before plan termination.
  • Change wording that refers to the dollar amount currently subject to cashout by statute ($5,000) so it refers instead to the statutory provision that specifies that dollar amount.
  • Clarify that a de minimis benefit of a participant who dies after plan termination will be paid as an amount due a decedent, not as a qualified preretirement survivor annuity.
  • Clarify that benefits will be paid to estates only as lump sums.
  • Clarify that accumulated mandatory employee contributions may not be withdrawn if benefits are in pay status when a plan becomes trusteed.
  • Clarify that the form of benefit in pay status when a plan becomes trusteed will not be changed.
  • Clarify that pre-trusteeship partial distributions are considered in determining benefits.
  • Require that fair market value or fair value, as appropriate, be used for purposes of valuing assets to be allocated to participants’ benefits and in determining employer liability and net worth.

The second proposed rule would modify the assumptions the PBGC uses to determine de minimis lump sum benefits in PBGC-trusteed terminated single-employer defined benefit pension plans and would discontinue monthly publication of PBGC’s lump sum interest rate assumption.

The agency says it is aware that a relatively small number of defined benefit (DB) plans use its interest rates as computed using its historical methodology (legacy interest rates) to determine the lump sum equivalents of annuity benefits. It notes that actuarial practice, with the help of technology, has moved toward a yield-curve approach where future benefits are discounted to the measurement date based on yields on bonds of similar duration. By associating an interest rate with a specific time horizon, a yield curve better approximates the present value of future benefits. As a result, the immediate and deferred structure of PBGC’s legacy interest rates has become increasingly obsolete.

Additionally, PBGC notes that the methodology it uses to compute each month’s immediate and deferred interest rates, which was established at a time when computing resources were limited, is simplistic and typically results in interest rates significantly lower than the rates most private-sector plans use to determine lump sums.

“Given that the legacy interest rates’ structure and methodology have become increasingly obsolete, PBGC concluded that continued publication of the legacy interest rates for any use would be inappropriate,” the proposed rule says. “Instead, PBGC proposes to publish a final set of interest rates in appendix C for private-sector plans to use for valuation dates on or after the effective date of the final rule equal to the average immediate and deferred rates for the 120-month period ending in July 2019, rounded to the nearest quarter percent.”

The agency also warns plans sponsors that once the appendix C rates are no longer identical to the rates used by the PBGC, the plan terms may have an ambiguity that should be resolved. “Resolving this ambiguity would not necessarily mean that such a plan would have to start using the ‘applicable interest rate’ for that purpose (which could result in smaller lump sums). Rather, unclear provisions in such a plan could be amended to specify the use of the interest rates in appendix C, provided that the resulting lump sum is no less than the minimum amount determined in accordance with section 417(e)(3) of the Code and that any other applicable requirements are satisfied,” the proposed rule states.

The PBGC is requesting comments about both proposed rules.

PepsiCo Defeats Pension Anti-Cutback ERISA Challenge

While it rejects one of the defense’s arguments for why its pension plan operated within the bounds of ERISA, in the end, the court ruled plaintiffs’ fiduciary breach claims fail as a matter of law.

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has ruled in favor of PepsiCo’s motion to dismiss an Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) lawsuit targeting the global beverage company.

Plaintiffs filed the lawsuit in December 2018 as one of a handful of very similarly structured complaints that also targeted MetLife and American Airlines. The lawsuits named as defendants the sizable companies and their various benefits committees or boards. In the case of the Pepsi, apart from the company, it names the PepsiCo Administration Committee.

Want the latest retirement plan adviser news and insights? Sign up for PLANADVISER newsletters.

The lawsuits alleged the companies failed to pay promised benefits under pension plans that are actuarially equivalent to a single life annuity for the life of the plan participant, as required by Section 205 of ERISA. By not offering actuarially equivalent pension benefits, defendants caused retirees to lose part of their vested retirement benefits, the complaints alleged.

Ruling in the PepsiCo case, the New York District Court notes that, if a pension plan participant chooses to receive a survivor annuity calling for potential payments to the participant’s spouse, the participant naturally will get less money each month than if he or she chose to receive a single life annuity, or “SLA.”

“This makes sense,” the decision states. “A participant can choose to set money aside for his or her spouse after the participant dies, but doing so leaves less for the participant while he or she is still alive. Plan administrators must therefore calculate how much to pay each month to a participant who chooses to receive a [joint annuity]. ERISA requires that such calculations yield an annuity that is the actuarial equivalent of the participant’s SLA. In plain English, all the options in the alphabet soup of benefits from which a plan participant may choose must, at the end of the day, be worth the same as the participant’s SLA.”

The ruling points out that plaintiffs claim defendants do not follow the allegedly standard method of calculating conversion factors. Instead, plaintiffs say defendants “baldly” set a fixed conversion factor for each form of alternative benefit, and then apply those conversion factors to all participants alike—no matter the prevailing interest rate of the day, and no matter the participant’s life expectancy.

“Plaintiffs allege these fixed conversion factors yield [joint annuities] with lower present values than the SLAs that were available to plaintiffs at early retirement,” the decision states. “Thus, plan participants who retire early and choose a [joint annuity] allegedly end up worse off than if defendants calculated conversion factors in the purportedly standard fashion, using reasonable market interest rates and mortality tables.”

Against these allegations, the decision recounts, defendants first contended the plaintiffs’ claims fail as a matter of law because they do not arise under ERISA, but rather arise under federal regulations from which no private right of action derives. The Court says flatly the defendants are wrong on this matter.

“The complaint plainly pleads claims under ERISA, not regulations promulgated thereunder,” the decision states. “As plaintiffs’ opposition brief explains, the complaint’s citations to regulations interpreting ERISA do not mean plaintiffs rely on those regulations, rather than ERISA, as the legal basis for their causes of action. To the contrary, the complaint explicitly accuses defendants of violating ERISA in various ways.”

On the other hand, the Court agrees with the defense argument that the plaintiffs have failed to plausibly allege a violation of ERISA’s anti-forfeiture provision, because the provision applies only to “normal retirement benefits upon the attainment of normal retirement age.”

“Nonforfeitability attaches only after the employee attains normal retirement age,” the decision states. “The anti-forfeiture provision thus gives a plaintiff no vested right to receive benefits until he reaches normal retirement age. No plaintiff allegedly reached the plan’s normal retirement age. Accordingly, plaintiffs do not adequately plead that the anti-forfeiture provision applies.”

The full text of the ruling is available here

«