Recordkeepers and other service providers have submitted generally positive comment letters to the Department of Labor regarding its proposed e-delivery default rule, but they also have some specific suggestions for improving the proposal.
The associated instructions have also been updated to reflect, among other changes, an increase to $2,194 per day in the maximum civil penalty amount assessable under ERISA Section 502(c)(2).
Retirement plan service providers generally support making electronic delivery of documents the default, but print communication industry organizations and some consumer groups say the paper default should remain.
Eugene Scalia is known for having worked in the trenches of a number of labor issues for many years, and experts suggest he could have a big influence on the DOL’s agenda.
The Department of Labor's Employee Benefits Security Administration determined he defrauded $2 million from the Rehabilitation Center for Children & Adults Inc. Pension Trust
“Invitation to correct” letters state, “the 15th business day is not a safe harbor and is included in the regulation only as an outside limit of the time that may be considered for segregation of assets.”
The Department of Labor's Employee Benefit Security Administration (EBSA) also alleged in a lawsuit that fiduciaries to two retirement plans failed to administer the plans, leaving participants unable to gain information about their funds or gain access to their plan accounts.
The Department of Labor has published employee benefit plan compliance guidance and relief for victims of Hurricanes Florence and Michael, recognizing that plan fiduciaries and employers may encounter unavoidable issues with ERISA compliance.
Those industry stakeholders disappointed by the limited scope of the proposed regulations can take heart in the fact that DOL staff calls for detailed commentary on ways the proposal could be expanded, including into the area of “open MEPs” and “corporate MEPs.”
Under DOL scrutiny, the Illinois-based employer has agreed to restore nearly $420,000 to its defined benefit pension plan.
The text of the regulation is still forthcoming, but the Office of Management and Budget has completed its review; so far, we know the regulation is viewed as “major” and “economically significant.”
A Maryland business owner will serve one year and one day of imprisonment and pay more than $350,000 in restitution for violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.
The Department of Labor’s (DOL)’s Employee Benefit Security Administration’s (EBSA)’s Plan Investment Conflicts (PIC) project investigates issues related to fiduciary service provider compensation and conflicts of interest in relation to plan asset vehicles.
A court appointed an independent fiduciary to distribute assets to the remaining plan participants.
The court-ordered restitution includes $69,000 in employee and matching employer contributions, as well as lost earnings due to the 401(k) plan, and approximately $4.3 million for fraudulent loans and identity theft.
According to EBSA Regional Director Michael Schloss, Cambridge Technology Group and its CEO made it nearly impossible for retirement plan participants to access their funds; both have been removed as plan fiduciaries.
A review of industry commentary dissecting the DOL’s recently published Field Assistance Bulletin on the topic of ESG investments suggests the “sub-regulatory guidance” has left a lot of stakeholders with key questions.
A federal district court has ordered eye-care company Eye Centers of Tennessee LLC, its owner Dr. Larry E. Patterson, and its office administrator Raymond K. Mays to pay $971,622 in restitution to the company’s 401(k) plan.
A pair of former executives of First Farmers Financial are being punished for their involvement in the sale of $179 million in fraudulent loans to a Milwaukee company that provided investment services to 42 retirement plans covered by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.
A complicated decision out of a Virginia district court weighs the merits of third-party expert commentary in ERISA litigation, in this case pertaining to an allegedly improper ESOP transaction.