Posted on

Who Should Be Trustee of Your 401(k) Plan?

When a company establishes a 401(k) plan it is necessary to name a trustee of the plan. This is a very important decision that is not always given the careful deliberation that it deserves. This post covers why it is such a crucial decision and outlines some of the options for naming a plan trustee.

Why it Matters

The trustee is responsible for the plan assets. Every 401(k) plan involves a tax-qualified trust established under Section 401(a) of the Internal Revenue Code and all plan assets are nominally held in that trust, so the trustee of that trust is in charge of all plan assets. That includes collection of contributions, their investment while held by the trust, and their ultimate disbursement to plan participants and beneficiaries. In most 401(k) plans, even though participants take on responsibility for choosing among plan investment options under Section 404(c) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), the plan trustee is responsible for selecting the menu of options from which participants choose. If problems are identified with plan investment performance, or with the amounts paid to plan service providers, the plan trustee may be called to answer in court.

The standard of care is one of the most stringent known under law. A plan trustee is a fiduciary under ERISA. The fiduciary standard of care, often referred to as the “prudent expert” standard, is set forth under ERISA § 404(a)(1). It requires that plan trustees consistently do all of the following:

  • Act solely in the interest of plan participants and their beneficiaries and with the exclusive purpose of providing benefits to them;
  • Carry out their duties prudently;
  • Follow the terms of the plan documents (unless doing so is inconsistent with ERISA);
  • Diversify plan investments; and
  • Pay only reasonable plan expenses to service providers, with “reasonableness” being measured in light of the services provided to the plan.

More information about fiduciary duties under ERISA is set forth in a booklet titled “Meeting Your Fiduciary Responsibilities” that is published by the Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration. Every person who is serving as an ERISA plan fiduciary or who is in a position to appoint a plan fiduciary should familiarize themselves with the contents of the booklet and should seek out qualified ERISA counsel to assist in applying the concepts in the booklet to their particular factual situation.

At this juncture it is appropriate to discuss specialized types of ERISA fiduciaries who can be engaged to assist plan trustees in various ways. Perhaps the most prevalent is the ERISA 3(21) fiduciary, a paid investment advisor that assists the plan trustee in selecting plan investments, reviewing investment performance, and providing recommendations about investments to the plan fiduciary. They bear fiduciary liability, but the plan trustee carries ultimate liability for acting, or not acting, on the 3(21) fiduciary’s recommendations. An ERISA 3(38) investment manager, rather than merely making recommendations, directly selects and monitors the plan’s investment option menu, changing out funds and providers as it finds appropriate. The plan trustee is regularly advised about the investment manager’s decisions and retains fiduciary liability over the selection and monitoring of the 3(38) investment manager. An ERISA 3(16) fiduciary primarily has an administrative role, rather than having to do with plan investments. They can take over responsibility for signing and filing Form 5500 return/reports and other tasks that plan trustees would otherwise have to fulfill. (This is just a very brief overview of these various roles; there is more information about these three types of fiduciaries here and here.) Each of these types of fiduciary will charge fees for their services; selection of any of them is itself a fiduciary act and their fees must be reasonable in light of the services provided.

401(k) litigation continues apace. Litigation against 401(k) plan trustees and other fiduciaries have been trending for almost 20 years. The lawsuits, most of which have been brought in class action format and have settled out of court, generally allege that plan fiduciaries have selected overly expensive investments or and/or are overpaying service providers such as investment managers, record keepers and third-party administrators. A recent Supreme Court opinion did not, as had been hoped, articulate a pleading standard that would have made it easier to eliminate an excessive fee lawsuit at the pleading stage. Although generally the lawsuits are directed at 401(k) plans with hundreds of millions of dollars in assets, there is nothing preventing class action counsel from targeting smaller plans.

Who to Name as Plan Trustee

Against that background, exercising extreme care in choosing a plan trustee is essential. There are two main options, and the sub-options within those two main categories.

The first consideration is whether or not to choose an institutional or third-party trustee such as a bank or trust company. An institutional or “corporate” trustee will have fiduciary liability for plan assets under investment, but they often serve as “directed” trustees who take investment direction from the plan sponsor or from an ERISA 3(38) investment manager, rather than as discretionary trustees who call the investment shots themselves. It is also possible to name a discretionary corporate trustee. Corporate trustees of either variety charge fees, usually in the form of a small percentage of plan assets, with a minimum fee for start-up plans. The fees must be reasonable in light of the services performed, and as with the choice of a fiduciary advisor or manger, selection of a corporate trustee is itself a fiduciary act.

Start-up and smaller plans often select an individual who is an executive or owner of the company sponsoring the plan to serve as plan trustee. That individual will potentially be personally liable for plan losses that are the result of their negligence or malfeasance. It is important that the individual named as a plan trustee be aware of this fact. It is also not uncommon for the company that sponsors the plan, to be named as the plan trustee. In this instance the company can only act by and through its board of directors, managers or partners (if an LLC or partnership), so if the company is named it is recommended that the board (or managers, or partners) form a plan committee to fulfill plan trustee duties. The committee should be comprised of individuals who have experience with investments and financial matters and who would be equipped to interview, select among, and monitor the performance of plan service providers such as ERISA 3(21) fiduciaries, 3(38) investment managers, record keepers, and third party administrators. Any individual serving as a plan trustee should also be comfortable performing those duties.

Whether an individual or board committee carries out plan trustee functions, the individual(s) serving in this role should commit to introductory and ongoing fiduciary training. This would include information about the standard of care applicable to, and duties of, an ERISA fiduciary and would break down how those duties translate into tasks such as regular meetings to review plan investment performance, protocol for documenting decisions made during such meetings (e.g., minutes and resolutions), selection and monitoring of plan service providers, and the like. In addition to undergoing training, individual fiduciary(ies) will need to be diligent in fulfilling their appointed tasks.

One further consideration is the purchase of fiduciary liability insurance. This is specialized liability coverage that is separate and different from the fiduciary bond required under ERISA Section 412(a). Fiduciary liability coverage acts like errors and omissions coverage, but with respect to a company or individual’s role as a fiduciary under an ERISA plan. 401(k) plan fee litigation has impacted the fiduciary liability insurance market, but coverage remains affordable and should be evaluated by individuals and board committees serving as plan trustees.

The above information is a brief summary of legal developments that is provided for general guidance only and does not create an attorney-client relationship between the author and the reader. Readers are encouraged to seek individualized legal advice in regard to any particular factual situation. © 2022 Christine P. Roberts, all rights reserved.

Photo credit: Joshua Hoehne, Unsplash

Posted on

The Dobbs Decision: Client Talking Points for Brokers and Advisors


The decision of the United States Supreme Court on June 24, 2022 in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization means that, for the first time in almost 50 years, employers that sponsor group health plans are subject to state-level regulation of abortion access. Employers will naturally turn to their group health brokers and advisors for initial guidance. Below are some talking points for brokers and advisors, including tips on when legal guidance from ERISA counsel may be required.

  1. First, be aware that there will be no one-size-fits all approach. Each client’s path forward will vary depending upon whether their group health plan is self-insured, or insured, what states they operate and have employees in, and on whether they offer additional benefits such as health flexible spending accounts (health FSAs), health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs), or Health Savings Accounts (HSAs).
  2. With that in mind, you can start by cataloguing the plans each client has in place, and the states in which they have group health insurance policies in place and employ personnel. Remote work in the post-COVID environment may make it challenging to identify all states in which employees perform services for your client.
    a. If, for instance, a client has a fully insured group health plan under a policy issued in a state that has a trigger law, such as Kentucky, then abortions will likely become unavailable under the insured plan. (A discussion of state trigger laws prepared for the American Society for Reproductive Medicine is found here.) You will want to work with the carrier and the client to communicate potential changes to the policy and coverage around abortion services.
    b. If, for instance, your client has a self-insured group health plan, it is not directly impacted by state laws prohibiting abortion due to ERISA preemption. However, state criminal laws of general application are not preempted by ERISA. Employers with self-insured group health plans with employees in states that make abortion a crime may need to address potential liability and ERISA preemption issues with legal counsel.
  3. Medical travel benefits are trending as an area of interest for clients with insured plans in states that prohibit abortion, and for all clients with employees living in those states that may need to travel for abortion services. There are a variety of ways to provide medical travel benefits and a whole host of potential compliance issues that arise. You may not be in a position to advise on all of the issues, some of which cross over into legal advice, but you should be familiar with key points, as follows:
    a. Whether to offer the benefit pre-or post-tax – medical travel reimbursements are fairly limited under the tax code and fairly low dollar limits apply under health FSAs ($2,850) and Excepted Benefit HRAs ($1,800). An integrated HRA or a post-tax arrangement can be in an amount the employer chooses.
    b. ERISA compliance – a medical travel reimbursement arrangement will be subject to ERISA disclosure requirements and ERISA reporting requirements depending upon the number of participants eligible under the arrangement.
    c. Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act and HIPAA Privacy issues – if the arrangement covers medical travel only for abortion services, parity for mental health benefits is a problem. For this reason, it may be preferable to offer benefits for all types of medical travel. Processing reimbursements for such plans will involve review of protected health information and trigger HIPAA compliance if the arrangement covers 50 or more participants or is an arrangement of any size that is administered by a third party. For this latter reason some employers are offering generalized travel reimbursement plans that do not require proof of medical treatment. Note that such arrangements would not be subject to ERISA (and ERISA preemption would not apply to any aiding and abetting laws asserted against employers offering them). Such arrangements would also potentially trigger wide uptake among employees and considerable employer expense.
    d. Medical travel reimbursement arrangements will need to be coordinated with other arrangements such as health FSAs and eligibility under a medical travel arrangement will impact HSA eligibility. A careful survey of clients’ benefit landscape is necessary before implementing a medical travel reimbursement arrangement.
    e. States such as Texas and Oklahoma have laws that prohibit “aiding and abetting” abortion – including through provision of insurance and reimbursements – which could be directed at employers offering these benefits. Further, a group of Texas legislators (the “Texas Freedom Caucus”) has threatened criminal prosecution of at least one employer that offers travel benefits for those seeking abortion services. The ultimate enforceability of these provisions against employers will need to be determined through litigation, which may take years to unfold. In the meantime, clients contemplating medical travel benefits for abortion services will need competent legal counsel on potential liability and ERISA preemption issues that are raised.
  4. Be mindful of stop-loss coverage and the need to involve the stop-loss carrier in discussions of any change in self-insured plan design, around abortion services.
  5. Be aware that the compliance landscape is shifting constantly and that it is important to closely monitor your sources for benefits news. Even as this post was being finished, it was announced that the Dick’s Sporting Goods chain, which had offered a $4,000 travel benefit to employees seeking out-of-state abortions, was sued by “America First Legal,” a conservative group, on the grounds that the travel benefit violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act by discriminating against female employees who choose to give birth. As many of the key issues in this area will be litigated, fast answers are not available. The safest strategy for the foreseeable future is to stay informed and proceed with caution. The above information is a brief summary of legal developments that is provided for general guidance only and does not create an attorney-client relationship between the author and the reader. Readers are encouraged to seek individualized legal advice in regard to any particular factual situation. © 2022 Christine P. Roberts, all rights reserved.

Photo credit: Cody Engel, Unsplash

Posted on

How to Prepare Business Owners for the Approaching CalSavers Deadline

CalSavers is a state-run retirement program that applies to employers who do not already sponsor their own retirement plan.  It automatically enrolls eligible employees in a state-managed system of Roth IRA accounts. It has been in place since September 30, 2020 for employers with more than 100 employees and since June 30, 2021 for employers with more than 50 employees.  On June 31, 2022, it goes into effect for employers with 5 or more employees.  Below we cover key aspects of the CalSavers program, focusing on the types of issues that California business owners might bring to their benefits advisor for further clarification. A version of this post was published in the March 2022 issue of Santa Barbara Lawyer magazine.

Q.1:  What is CalSavers?

A.1:  CalSavers is the byproduct of California Senate Bill 1234, which Governor Brown signed into law in 2016. It is codified in Title 21 of the California Government Code and in applicable regulations. It creates a state board tasked with developing a workplace retirement savings program for private for-profit and non-profit employers with at least 5 employees that do not sponsor their own retirement plans (“Eligible Employers”).  Specifically, CalSavers calls for employees aged at least 18, and who receive a Form W-2 from an eligible employer, to be automatically enrolled in the CalSavers program after a 30-day period, during which they may either opt out, or customize their contribution level and investment choices.   The default is an employee contribution of 5% of their wages subject to income tax withholding, automatically increasing each year by 1% to a maximum contribution level of 8%. Employer contributions currently are prohibited, but they may be allowed at a later date.

Q.2:  If a business wants to comply with CalSavers, what does it need to do?

A.2:  The steps are as follows:

  • Prior to their mandatory participation date – which as mentioned is June 30, 2022 for employers with 5 or more employees, Eligible Employers will receive a notice from the CalSavers program containing an access code, and a written notice that may be forwarded to employees. Eligible Employers must log on to the CalSavers site to either register online, or certify their exemption from Calsavers by stating that their business already maintains a retirement plan. The link to do so is here. To do either, the employer will need its federal Employer Identification Number or Tax Identification Number, as well as the access code provided in the CalSavers notice. 
  • Eligible Employers who enroll in CalSavers will provide some basic employee roster information to CalSavers. CalSavers will then contact employees directly to notify them of the program and to instruct them about how to enroll or opt-out online. Those who enroll will have an online account which they can access in order to change their contribution levels or investment selections.
  • Once an Eligible Employer has enrolled in CalSavers, their subsequent obligations are limited to deducting and remitting each enrolled employee’s contributions each pay period, and to adding new eligible employees within 30 days of hire (or of attaining eligibility by turning age 18, if later).
  • Eligible Employers may delegate their third-party payroll provider to fulfill these functions, if the payroll provider agrees and is equipped to do so.  CalSavers provides information on adding payroll representatives once a business registers.

Q.3:  How does a business prove it is exempt from CalSavers?

A.3:  There are several steps:

  • First, it must have a retirement plan in place as of the mandatory participation date.  This may mean a 401(k) plan, a 403(b) plan, a SEP or SIMPLE plan, or a multiple employer (union) plan. 
  • Employers with plans in place must still register with CalSavers to certify their exemption.  The link is at https://employer.calsavers.com (Select “I need to exempt my business” from the pull-down menu.)  They will need their federal Employer Identification Number or Tax Identification Number and an access code that is provided on a notice they should have received from CalSavers.  If they can’t find their notice, they can call (855) 650-6916.  

Q.4:     How does a business count employees, for the 5 or more threshold?

A.4: To count employees for purposes of the 5 or more threshold, a business takes the average number of employees that it reported to the California Environmental Development Department (EDD) for the previous calendar year.  This is done by counting the employees reported to the EDD on Form DE 9C, “Quarterly Contribution Return and Report of Wages (Continuation)” for the quarter ending December 31 and the previous three quarters, counting full- and part-time employees.   So, for example, if a business reported over 5 employees to EDD for the quarter ending December 31, 2021 and the previous three quarters, combined, and it did not maintain a retirement plan, it would need to register with CalSavers by June 30, 2022.  If a business uses staffing agencies or a payroll company, or a professional employer organization, this will impact its employee headcount. The business should seek legal counsel as the applicable regulations are somewhat complex.

Q.5: What are the consequences of noncompliance with CalSavers requirements?

A.5:  There are monetary penalties for noncompliance, imposed on the Eligible Employer by CalSavers working together with the Franchise Tax Board. The penalty is $250 per eligible employee for failure to comply after 90 days of receiving the CalSavers notification, and $500 per eligible employee if noncompliance extends to 180 days or more after the notice.  CalSavers has begun enforcing compliance with the program in early 2022, for employers with more than 100 employees who were required to enroll by the September 30, 2020 deadline.   

Q.6:  Are there any legal challenges to CalSavers?

A.6:  Yes, but the main suit challenging the program has exhausted all appeals, without success. A bit of background information is necessary to understand the legal challenge to CalSavers. The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) generally preempts state laws relating to benefits, but a Department of Labor “safe harbor” dating back to 1975 excludes from the definition of an ERISA plan certain “completely voluntary” programs with limited employer involvement. 29 C.F.R. § 2510.3-2(d).  The Obama administration finalized regulations in 2016 that would have expressly classified state programs like CalSavers, as exempt from ERISA coverage, and thus permissible for states to impose. However, Congress passed legislation in 2017 that repealed those regulations, such that the 1975 safe harbor remains applicable. Arguing that the autoenrollment feature of CalSavers program makes CalSavers not completely voluntary and thus takes it out of the 1975 regulatory safe harbor, a California taxpayer association argued that ERISA preempts CalSavers.   On March 29, 2019, a federal court judge concluded that ERISA did not prevent operation of the CalSavers program, because the program only applies to employers who do not have retirement plans governed by ERISA.  The Ninth Circuit affirmed.  In late February 2022, the Supreme Court of the United States declined to review the case. Meanwhile, state-operated IRA savings programs are underway in a number of other states, including Oregon, Illinois and New York, and in the formation stages in yet others. 

Q.7:  Does CalSavers apply to out-of-state employers? 

A.7:  It can.  An employer’s eligibility is based on the number of California employees it employs, as reported to EDD. Eligible employees are any individuals who have the status of an employee under California law, who receive wages subject to California taxes, and who are at least 18 years old. If an out-of-state employer has more than 5 employees meeting that description, as measured in the manner described in Q&A 4, then as of June 30, 2022 it would need to either sponsor a retirement plan, or register for CalSavers.

Q.8.  Does CalSavers apply to businesses located in California, with workers who perform services out of state? 

A.8:  Yes, if the employer is not otherwise exempt, and if they have a sufficient number of employees who have the status of an employee under California law, who receive wages subject to California taxes, and who are at least 18 years old.

Q.9: Can an employer be held liable over the costs, or outcome of CalSavers investments?

A.9:  No.  Eligible Employers concerned about lawsuits should be aware that they are shielded from fiduciary liability to employees that might otherwise arise regarding investment performance or other aspects of participation in the CalSavers program.  In that regard, the CalSavers Program Disclosure Booklet, available online, goes into significant detail about the way CalSavers contributions will be invested; notably the cost of these investments (consisting of an underlying fund fee, a state fee, and a program administration fee).

Q.10:  Can an employer share its opinions about CalSavers, to employees?

A.10.  Not really.  Eligible Employers must remain neutral about the CalSavers program and may not encourage employees to participate, or discourage them from doing so. They should refer employees with questions about CalSavers to the CalSavers website or to Client Services at 855-650-6918 or clientservices@calsavers.com.

The above information is a brief summary of legal developments that is provided for general guidance only and does not create an attorney-client relationship between the author and the reader. Readers are encouraged to seek individualized legal advice in regard to any particular factual situation. © 2022 Christine P. Roberts, all rights reserved.

Posted on

What the Supreme Court’s Hughes Decision Means to Plan Sponsors

“The point is that you’re not insulated from making bad [investment] decisions in your — [ . . . ] plan by the fact that you’ve made some good [investment] decisions in your plan, are you?”[1]

The fiduciaries of two 403(b) plans maintained by Northwestern University were sued for ERISA fiduciary breach on the grounds that the plans paid excessive recordkeeping fees, in part because of the existence of multiple recordkeepers, offered retail share class mutual funds and annuities when cheaper and materially identical institutional class alternatives were available to a plan of Northwestern’s size, and had a too-large roster of investment options that confused participants (Northwestern made changes that corrected some of these issues by the time the Supreme Court heard oral argument.)  The Northwestern fiduciaries moved to dismiss these claims, in part, on the grounds that the participants could have chosen from among lower-priced investments offered by the plans, hence failed to successfully allege that a fiduciary breach occurred.

In a unanimous decision by Justice Sonia Sotomayor in Hughes v. Northwestern University, the Supreme Court addressed a narrow issue on the standard of pleading an ERISA fiduciary breach: 

  • Whether, if plaintiffs can allege the existence of overpriced or otherwise imprudent investment options or recordkeeping arrangements, their complaint will survive a motion to dismiss, and may proceed to trial, even if participants could have chosen from among other investments that were not similarly flawed.

The Supreme Court answered this question “yes,” and remanded the case to the Seventh Circuit to determine whether fiduciary breaches were sufficiently alleged, notwithstanding that the Northwestern University 403(b) plans included some low-cost investment options which participants, in the self-directed arrangement, were free to choose over higher-priced options.

In reaching its conclusion the Supreme Court called out the Seventh Circuit for using “flawed” reasoning in its over-reliance on participant choice: “[s]uch a categorical rule is inconsistent with the context-specific inquiry that ERISA requires and fails to take into account respondents’ duty to monitor all plan investments and remove any imprudent ones.”  Hughes Opinion at p. 2, citing Tibble v. Edison Int’l, 575 U.S. 524, 530 (2015).

In other words, because ERISA fiduciaries must continually monitor investment options (and recordkeeping contracts, and other arrangements whose costs offset the growth of ERISA assets), the maintenance of some options that reflect fiduciary prudence does not excuse the continued presence of other options that do not. 

Reliance throughout the Hughes opinion on the Tibble case is instructive.  In that case, plaintiffs alleged in 2007 that the Edison 401(k) Savings Plan added mutual funds in 1999 and in 2002 with retail share pricing when materially identical, lower-priced institutional-class mutual funds were available.  The district court allowed the allegations regarding the funds added in 2002 to proceed but not the funds added in 1999, because more than six years had passed since the overpriced funds were added to the investment mix, and that exceeded the applicable statute of limitations for fiduciary breach.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed, but the Supreme Court disagreed, holding that ERISA fiduciary’s continuing duty to monitor and remove imprudent investments meant that the statute of limitations with regard to the 1999 fund additions remained open, because imprudent retention of an investment was a fiduciary breach, separate and distinct from a breach that occurs at the point of selecting an investment. 575 U.S. at 529, citing, inter alia, A. Hess, G. Bogert, & G. Bogert, Law of Trusts and Trustees § 684, at 147-148.

While it does not provide bright-line answers to what constitutes a fiduciary breach, the Hughes decision does acknowledge the complexity that the duty of prudence encompasses, stating that examinations of fiduciary prudence “will necessarily be context specific,” turning on the factual circumstances that prevail at the time the fiduciary acts; that at times, the circumstances facing an ERISA fiduciary will implicate “difficult tradeoffs,” and that courts must give “due regard” to the “range of reasonable judgments a fiduciary may make based on her experience and expertise.” Hughes Opinion at p. 6.

What does this mean for plan sponsors, plan investment committees, and other fiduciaries of 401(k), 403(b) and other ERISA retirement plans?  Nothing that common sense did not already dictate, but seeing the issues addressed so succinctly by the country’s highest court should be an impetus for plan fiduciaries to take the proper steps, which include (but are not limited to):

  • They must regularly evaluate the performance and pricing of their entire universe of investment options, as well as their recordkeeping and other vendor relationship, in a regular benchmarking or other apples-to-apples comparison process.
  • They must also put those relationships out to competitive bid at the outset of the relationship and periodically thereafter.
  • The benchmarking and bidding process must be documented in the form of meeting minutes and resolutions as must the periodic, such as quarterly, review of investment performance.
  • Use of a carefully chosen ERISA 3(21) investment advisor or 3(38) investment manager will assist with this process, but the choice and retention of the fiduciary advisor or manager is itself subject to the fiduciary standard and failing to benchmark and bid out those relationships could lead to potential liability.
  • An investment policy statement that articulates the process through which fiduciaries fulfill their duties of prudence, loyalty, and diversification with regard to selection and retention of investments is also advisable. However, care must be taken to not create too specific a set of guidelines as drifting from them could itself give rise to fiduciary liability.

In summary, the Supreme Court has weighed in, and ERISA fiduciaries who can point to some prudent investment options will not defeat fiduciary breach allegations at the pleading stage if they have not also regularly monitored and pruned inefficient and overpriced investments and recordkeeping relationships from their plan lineup.  Plan sponsors and other fiduciaries who already have good fiduciary hygiene practices in place should have little to fear, but those who do not now have no comfort that some is good enough, for defeating allegations of fiduciary imprudence.

The above information is a brief summary of legal developments that is provided for general guidance only and does not create an attorney-client relationship between the author and the reader. Readers are encouraged to seek individualized legal advice in regard to any particular factual situation. © 2022 Christine P. Roberts, all rights reserved.

Photo credit: Bill Mason, Unsplash

[1] Justice Elena Kagan, Transcript of Oral Argument, Hughes v. Northwestern (19-1401), Retrieved at https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2021/19-1401_d18f.pdf