Long-Running Church Plan Case Reaches $25M Settlement

The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last year overturned a lower court’s decision to summarily dismiss the lawsuit, which argued OSF Healthcare System’s retirement plan should be subject to ERISA protections.

Details of a settlement agreement have emerged in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) lawsuit known as Smith v. OSF Healthcare System.

The plaintiffs in the case are a class of former employees and participants of one OSF’s pension plans. Their lawsuit argued that OSF was inappropriately relying on the “church plan exemption” included in ERISA, which provides that retirement plans run by “principal-purpose” religious organizations do not have to meet certain participant protection standards and funding requirements demanded of corporations and most other employers sponsoring tax-qualified pensions.

Never miss a story — sign up for PLANADVISER newsletters to keep up on the latest retirement plan adviser news.

Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that OSF, in violation of ERISA, relied on the exemption to allow its plans to become severely underfunded. They alleged that the OSF pension plan’s holding assets are only sufficient to fund roughly 56% of accrued benefits.

In the settlement agreement, OSF admits no wrongdoing, but the hospital system agrees to pay a sum of $25 million to better fund the plan, to be paid in equal annual installments over the next five years. The agreement permits a maximum attorneys fee of $1.75 million for the class counsel.

The settlement agreement also provides certain non-monetary relief. For example, beginning 60 days after the effective date of settlement, the administrator for the OSF pension plans will put in place “certain new arrangements concerning the OSF plans’ administration, notices and procedures.” These include regular pension benefit statements to be sent to each participant in the plan, providing the “latest available information regarding his or her accrued benefits and information regarding which of his or her benefits are non-forfeitable benefits, if any, or stating the earliest date on which the benefits become non-forfeitable.”

Additionally, any participant in the OSF pension plan who has terminated service during a plan year and who is entitled to a deferred benefit under the plan will be provided with “a statement, upon request, regarding the nature, amount and form of such terminated plan participant’s non-forfeitable benefit.”

This conclusion to the church plan lawsuit comes only after multiple rulings in district and appellate courts. Most recently, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a lower court’s decision to summarily dismiss the lawsuit while discovery was still ongoing. The ruling stated that the true underlying issue in the case is whether ERISA applies at all to the pension plans offered by OSF, a religious nonprofit organization that operates 11 hospitals in Illinois and Michigan.

The appeals court also noted that ERISA defines church plans in a specific way, as follows: “A plan established and maintained for its employees (or their beneficiaries) by a church or by a convention or association of churches includes a plan maintained by an organization, whether a civil law corporation or otherwise, the principal purpose or function of which is the administration or funding of a plan or program for the provision of retirement benefits or welfare benefits, or both, for the employees of a church or a convention or association of churches, if such organization is controlled by or associated with a church or a convention or association of churches.”

The full text of the settlement is available here.

SEC Approves Controversial Shareholder Proposal

Negative reactions immediately piled in from concerned stakeholders and consumer advocates who say the proxy voting rule amendments will stifle shareholder engagement.

A divided U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) voted today to adopt amendments to its shareholder proposal rules, which govern the process for a shareholder to have proposals included in a company’s proxy statement for consideration by all the company’s shareholders. 

Under the amended rules, a shareholder may submit an initial proposal after having held $2,000 of company stock for at least three years, or higher amounts for shorter periods of time. Specifically, to put forward a proposal before this three-year period, an individual or entity must hold $15,000 of the company’s securities for at least two years, or $25,000 of the company’s securities for at least one year.

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

Critics of the rule amendments say the new framework will make it significantly harder for smaller shareholders to put forward proposals. Notably, the rule amendments provide for a transition period so shareholders who are currently eligible at the $2,000 threshold will remain eligible to submit a proposal for inclusion in the company’s proxy statement “so long as they continue to maintain at least their current holdings through the date of submission (and through the date of the relevant meeting).” 

“Today’s amendments reflect many years of the staff’s engagement with investors and market participants, as well as their extensive experience with shareholder proposals,” SEC Chairman Jay Clayton said after the vote. “These amendments ensure there is an appropriate alignment of interests between shareholder-proponents and their fellow shareholders and illustrate again why retrospective review and, as appropriate, modernization of our rules is necessary.”

Clayton said that, in updating the initial submission criteria, the amendments help ensure a shareholder’s ability to have a proposal included in a company’s proxy materials—and thus to draw on company resources and to command the time and attention of the company and other shareholders—appropriately takes into consideration the interests of not only the shareholder who submits a proposal, but also the other shareholders who bear the costs associated with reviewing, considering and voting on such proposals in the company’s proxy statement. 

An SEC fact sheet published after the vote details other key aspects of the rule amendments. For example, the new rules prohibit the aggregation of holdings for purposes of satisfying the amended ownership thresholds. They also require that a shareholder who elects to use a representative for the purpose of submitting a shareholder proposal provide documentation “to make clear that the representative is authorized to act on the shareholder’s behalf and to provide a meaningful degree of assurance as to the shareholder’s identity, role and interest in a proposal that is submitted for inclusion in a company’s proxy statement.”

Another rule change applies the “one-proposal rule” to “each person,” rather than “each shareholder” who submits a proposal. This means that a shareholder-proponent will not be permitted to submit one proposal in his or her own name and simultaneously serve as a representative to submit a different proposal on another shareholder’s behalf for consideration at the same meeting. Likewise, the representative will not be permitted to submit more than one proposal to be considered at the same meeting, even if the representative submitted each proposal on behalf of different shareholders.

The amendments will be effective 60 days after publication in the Federal Register, and the final amendments will apply to any proposal submitted for an annual or special meeting to be held on or after January 1, 2022. 

PLANADVISER received a sizable batch of negative comments about the rule changes immediately after the vote, including from within the SEC itself. Commissioner Allison Herren Lee noted that the new rules “will not serve markets well. … This will restrict shareholder rights.” She said the new rules will mostly impact small investors, suggesting that “retail investors will be greatly disenfranchised.”

“Under the new rules, the rights of smaller investors is valued at zero,” Herren Lee said.

Commissioner Caroline Crenshaw said shareholder resolutions are “a proven and effective pathway to suggesting changes to management.”

“Today, we have shut this down,” she lamented. “Shareholder resolutions drive positive financial performance. … The implication is that the wealthy are more likely to possess ideas that will impact a corporation.”

“The SEC has intervened to disrupt a system that has worked with fairness and integrity for over 50 years,” said Andrew Behar, CEO of the consumer advocacy group As You Sow. “Companies have gained deep insight into potential material risks to their businesses courtesy of their shareholder engagements. Investors have had a forum to raise their concerns, assisting companies to outperform. This is an ecosystem based on mutual respect and a common goal; helping companies be as good as they can be. The new SEC rules will force shareholders to escalate to litigation and other means.”

“The new rule guts the existing shareholder proposal process, which has long served as a cost-effective way for shareholders to communicate their priorities and concerns to management, with little economic analysis supporting the needs for these substantial changes,” said Josh Zinner, CEO of the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility (ICCR). “The new rules appear to be based on a wholly unsupported assumption that shareholder proposals are simply a burden to companies with no benefits for companies or non-proponent investors when there is 50 years of evidence to the contrary.”

Positive comments did come in from some parties, including the Institute for Pension Fund Integrity (IPFI), which said it “commends the SEC for taking action to build greater constructive engagement between shareholders and the companies that they have invested in, ensuring better functioning capital markets that prioritize long-term financial stability while at the same time reducing misuse of the shareholder proposal process.

“Under these updated regulations, we believe that there is less likelihood of special interests sidetracking the agenda of public companies with little regard to broader shareholder interests and investment returns,” reads a statement sent by the IPFI. “By facilitating better communications between shareholders and companies, investors will be able to make more informed decisions and the influence of outside proxy advisory firms, which have not been shown to act in the best fiduciary interest of their clients, will be curbed.”

«

Close
Distributed Energy Conference
Welcome! Stay sharp with PRNEWS Daily Update, delivered every morning to your inbox. It's FREE