Products June 23, 2021

BPAS and MP Partnership Focuses on Integrated Technology Solutions

Both companies offer the option to customize and manage service providers across employee benefit, payroll and accounting services.

Reported by

BPAS, a provider of retirement plans, benefit plans and other services, is partnering with MP, a human capital management (HCM) solutions company, to deliver integrated solutions for mutual plan sponsor clients. The MP-BPAS partnership means 360-degree integration technology links and synchronized data between the plan sponsor, recordkeeper, administrator and employees.  

This new partnership is said to eliminate manual uploads, reduce data entry errors and protect data integrity for employers choosing MP for comprehensive payroll services and BPAS for defined contribution (DC) plan administration. Data will be updated automatically between BPAS and MP whenever a change is made to one of the systems for full automation to all parties. 

For more stories like this, sign up for the PLANADVISERdash daily newsletter.

“We are excited to support MP and BPAS clients in a new way,” says Jason Maxwell, CEO of MP. “We can now offer seamless, top-tier solutions for plan administration, as well as proactive and reliable HR [human resources] and payroll services that will save our clients an enormous amount of time.” 

Both MP and BPAS offer employers the option to customize and manage service providers across employee benefit, payroll and accounting services.

“BPAS is committed to executing and streamlining the plan sponsor experience,” says Paul Neveu, BPAS CEO. “We recognize that payroll providers and DC plan recordkeepers operate in a world of client choice. So, when we can create a partnership where two firms truly optimize the client experience and deliver refreshing new solutions to employers, we’re going to jump at it. It’s like we’re restoring the confident silence back into plan administration.”

MP serves clients across the nation with a high concentration in New England. MP and BPAS began working together through adviser partnerships in 2014. 

“We have earned our clients’ trust as they outsource their retirement plan needs to us,” adds Neveu. “We’re proud of this partnership and are looking forward to a full rollout to clients. Plus, MP will now be a provider of choice for BPAS clients, serving their HR, payroll and benefits administration needs.”

Compliance June 23, 2021

Former Employee Claims DuPont Misled Him About Benefits Availability

A federal judge has found it plausible that DuPont was misleading, based on benefits notices sent to the former participant.

Reported by


A federal judge has moved forward a lawsuit in which a participant in the E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. defined benefit (DB) pension plan claimed benefit communications were not clear, causing him to miss out on years of benefits.

According to the court opinion, just before the plaintiff left the company in 1999, it sent him a benefits notice. The notice mentioned a “benefit commencement date (BCD),” which was in 1999. However, if he chose to start payments in 1999, his monthly payments would be smaller. The notice also included an “earliest unreduced BCD,” which was in 2010, at which time he would get the largest possible monthly payment. The benefits notice also included a third date, the plaintiff’s “normal retirement date” in 2017, when he turned 65. The plaintiff claims that this date was irrelevant. If he delayed the start of his pension payments until 2017, he would miss out on seven years of the largest possible payment, but DuPont never expressly said that.

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

After 1999, DuPont never again mentioned the 2010 date. For example, a notice sent to the plaintiff in 2000 reminded him of the 2017 date, and the “earliest unreduced BCD” line was not included in that notice.

In 2010, the plaintiff did not realize that he could start getting his full pension, so he waited years to start payments. He claims that as a result of DuPont’s misleading communications, he missed out on $135,000 in benefit payments. When he finally realized the mistake, he asked DuPont for the missed payments, but DuPont refused. In his lawsuit, he claims that by not reminding him of the 2010 date, DuPont breached its fiduciary duties of prudence and loyalty.

“Because [the plaintiff] has plausibly alleged that DuPont misled him, I will deny its motion to dismiss,” Judge Stephanos Bibas of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, who was designated to hear the case in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, wrote in his opinion.

Citing prior case law, Bibas said a loyal and prudent fiduciary may not “materially mislead those to whom the duties … are owed.” He added that the duty not to mislead may include an “affirmative duty … to provide fund participants with relevant information regarding existing benefits.”

Bibas found it plausible that DuPont misled the plaintiff. “Though the company told him about the 2010 date, it allegedly did so only once, a decade early. Meanwhile, it mentioned the irrelevant 2017 date more times,” Bibas pointed out. “A fiduciary might mislead a participant by selectively omitting important details. DuPont may have done that here.”

Bibas also noted that the one time that DuPont did mention the 2010 date, it barely explained the date’s significance. “It is plausible that a prudent fiduciary would have realized that [the plaintiff] did not get the message and would have reminded him,” he said.

DuPont counters that it never lied to the plaintiff and that it had no duty to remind him of the 2010 date. Bibas said that is wrong. “Sometimes, an ‘employer’s failure to advise’ a beneficiary of important information can be ‘a breach of its fiduciary duty even though the employer had previously provided the information in a written notice,’” he wrote, citing prior case law.

Bibas conceded that DuPont may ultimately show that it had no duty to remind the plaintiff of his benefits, but he said he cannot decide that on a motion to dismiss.

«