CEFEX Adds Data Security Awareness to Certification
The Center for Fiduciary Excellence (CEFEX) expanded its adviser certification test to include more data security questions, reflecting the industry’s heightened awareness of cybersecurity threats.
CEFEX offers independent testing and certification for investment
advisers, recordkeepers, administrators and managers serving as fiduciaries over client assets (see “A Designation with Fiduciary Muscle”). The firm says it developed the new data security requirements in
response to the Security and Exchange Commission’s recently renewed effort to
bring attention to cybersecurity (see “SEC
Kicks Off Cybersecurity Assessment”). The goal is to help ensure that
service providers understand the importance of data security and their
responsibility when dealing with the privacy and safeguarding of client data.
“We believe that the protection of personal information lies
within the fiduciary responsibilities of service providers,” explains Carlos
Panksep, general manager of CEFEX. He says CEFEX hopes certified firms will soon be
looked at as leaders in the industry when it comes to cybersecurity matters.
CEFEX assessments on investment advisers are performed
according to the standards established in “Prudent Practices for Investment
Advisors,” a set of guidelines published by fi360, Inc. For recordkeepers and administrators, CEFEX
follows standards established in “The Standard of Practice for Retirement Plan
Service Providers,” another set of guidelines published by the American Society for Pension Professionals
and Actuaries (ASPPA).
These sets of standards require the protection of both assets and information
by service providers, observes Brian Graff, chief executive officer and director
of ASPPA.
“Retirement plan records and investments are often linked to
personally identifiable information, so it’s imperative for service providers
to adapt their systems accordingly as more and more retirement information is
stored online,” Graff explains.
Full
copies of the standards can be downloaded from CEFEX at www.cefex.org.
By using this site you agree to our network wide Privacy Policy.
U.S. District Judge James S. Gwin of the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio found the evidence shows Thomas Spiewacki’s
reliance on an early retirement benefits representation sent to him was
unreasonable. He noted that the retirement packet Spiewacki received in
response to his retirement query three times said the benefits quoted in the
packet were only estimates.
According to the court opinion, the packet cover letter also
said the final benefits would depend on factors such as “the Company record
[and] pension plan formulas” and that the benefits would be “recalculated to
reflect your final employment data” after Spiewacki retired. The document with
the benefit calculation also said that the “calculations are subject to
corrections for errors in your record or otherwise.” Gwin wrote: “In light of
these disclaimers, plaintiff could not reasonably rely on the estimates being
correct.”
Gwin said Spiewacki must either show Ford’s actions contain
an element of fraud or they were grossly negligent, but he provided no evidence
about why the Ford defendants miscalculated his benefits in the initial letter.
Gwin also rejected Spiewacki’s claim that the Ford defendants induced his
retirement by providing him with incorrect benefit estimates. The evidence did
not show Spiewacki believed Ford wanted him to retire, and no evidence exists
in the record to show whether the plan and defendants would have been better
off had Spiewacki retired instead of continuing to work, Gwin said.
The
court also found Spiewacki’s reliance on another case, Bloemker v.
Laborers’ Local 265 Pension Fund, is incorrect (see “6th
Circuit Permits Pension Estoppel Cases”). Gwin noted that in Bloemker,
the defendants sent the plaintiff an estimate of the plaintiff’s retirement
benefits that included similar disclaimers, but when the Bloemker plaintiff
retired, defendants paid him the estimated amount for almost two years before
realizing they had misinterpreted the plan in calculating his benefits. In that
case, the plaintiff was asked to repay the defendants more than $11,000 for the
two years of overpayments. In the current case, the defendants never paid
Spiewacki the estimated amount. “Rather, the Ford Defendants did what the
disclaimers had promised: they recalculated his benefits in accordance with his
company records, discovered an error, and corrected it,” Gwin wrote.
Gwin noted in his opinion that disclaimers do not attempt to
disclaim liability for breach of fiduciary duty; rather, they tell the
recipient that the estimated calculation is not final. “The fact that a
fiduciary may not disclaim its fiduciary obligations does not mean that a
person may rely on a clearly-marked estimate,” he said. He granted summary
judgment for Ford.
According to the court opinion, in 2011, the plant at which
Spiewacki worked was closed, and under his collective bargaining contract, he
could either retire or work at a different Ford facility. He requested
information about Ford’s special early retirement package, and the Ford
National Employee Services Center sent him a packet of information concerning
the benefits for which he was eligible. The packet stated that the benefit for
a “Single Life Benefit” would be $2,769.34 per month until April 1, 2018. After
April 1, 2018, the benefit would be $1,422.66 per month. These calculations
were made by a third-party administrator, Xerox HR Solutions.
One document entitled, “Retirement Benefit Statement,”
contained a “DISCLAIMER,” that read:
Calculations detailed on this statement estimate the
pension benefit you may receive upon retirement based on current Plan
provisions and the assumptions shown. These calculations are subject to
corrections for errors in your record or otherwise. If this estimate differs
from your actual benefit, the applicable Plan document will control the final
determination concerning your benefit under the Plan. Any information shown as
assumptions may vary based on the date you are eligible to retire or the
options you have requested.
Spiewacki retired in November 2011 and selected the “Single
Life Benefit” option. He did not receive a Payment Adjustment Letter as
promised by the packet. In May 2012, the plan's Board of Administration
realized Xerox mistakenly had calculated his benefit as if he had 26.2 years of
credited service with Ford instead of 22.8 years. Using the correct amount of
credited service, Spiewacki’s benefit under the plan should have been $2,420.53
per month until April 1, 2018, and $1,243.47 per month afterwards. The Board
told Xerox to only pay the revised amount. Because Xerox began paying Spiewacki
benefits in June 2012, retroactive to his retirement, he has only received the
revised amount.
The
opinion in Spiewacki v. Ford Motor Company is here.