Wagner Logo

Legal Updates in ERISA, 

Employee Benefits & Human Resources

 

 

 

ERISA & Employee Benefits 

Welfare Benefit Plans

Investment Management

Estate Planning & Administration

Employment, Labor & Human Resources

Litigation, Corporate & Real Estate

February 2015

Join Our Mailing List

Send to a Colleague

 

 

 

 

 

 

Awards

 

Marcia Wagner has been named one of the top 100 most influential people in 401(k) industry by 401kWire for the eighth consecutive year, moving up to #15 on the list.

 

 

 

Upcoming Events

 

A Checklist for the Ever Evolving Employer-Employee Relationship - David Gabor, Employment Law Webinar, February 26, 2015 from 4:00 p.m. - 4:30 p.m. ET

 

2015 Regulatory Kickoff for Investment Advisers and Broker Dealers - Steve Wilkes, Investment Management Law Webinar, February 19, 2015 from 1:00 p.m. - 1:30 p.m. PT

 

ERISA Revenue Sharing Arrangements: Avoiding Plan Asset Status, Complying With Due Diligence Requirements - Marcia Wagner, Strafford Webinars, March 11, 2015 from 1:00 p.m. - 2:30 p.m. ET

 

Benefits Litigation - Stephen Rosenberg, American Conference Institute's ERISA Litigation Conference (Chicago, Illinois), April, 14, 2015

Use Steve's name for a discount.

 

 

 

Wagner Law Group News 

 

The Wagner Law Group website provides comprehensive resources on ERISA and employee benefits; estate planning; and employment, labor and human resources law. Below are links to these resources. 

 

 

 

January Articles Quoting The Wagner Law Group 

 

Fiduciary breach issue gets Supreme Court hearing - Steve Rosenberg, Pensions & Investments, January 26, 2015

 

Mortality Table Updates - Marcia Wagner, PlanSponsor, January 20, 2015

 

 

 

January Webinars and Podcasts

 

Performance Advertising Issues for Investment Advisers - Steve Wilkes, Investment Management Law, January 22, 2015

 

 

 

January Publications and Articles

 

Mortality Table Updates - Marcia Wagner, PlanSponsor, January 20, 2015

 

 

Tussey v. ABB, Inc.: What's Next - Marcia Wagner, 401(k) Advisor, January 2015

 

 

Clouds on the Horizon as ERISA Turns 40 - Marcia Wagner, Bloomberg BNA Tax Management Compensation Planning Journal, January 2, 2015

 

 

 

 

Newsletters  


The Wagner Law Group's Newsletters provide information on the latest changes in ERISA and employee benefits; investment management; litigation; estate planning and administration; and employment, labor and human resources law. 

 

 

 

Contact Info

 

The Wagner Law Group

 

Massachusetts Office 

 

Tel: (617) 357-5200

 

Fax: (617) 357-5250

 

99 Summer Street

 

13th Floor

 

Boston, MA 02110


Florida Office 

Tel: (561) 293-3590
Fax: (561) 293-3591 

7108 Fairway Drive, Suite 125

Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33418

 

California Office

Tel: (415) 625-0002

Fax: (415) 358-8300

315 Montgomery Street

Suite 904

San Francisco, CA 94104 

 

www.wagnerlawgroup.com 

 

 

 

 

This Newsletter is protected by copyright. Material appearing herein may be reproduced with appropriate credit.

  

Pursuant to Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we hereby inform you that any advice set forth herein with respect to US federal tax issues is not intended or written by The Wagner Law Group to be used and cannot be used, by you or any taxpayer, for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on you or any other person under the Internal Revenue Code.

 

This Newsletter is provided for information purposes by The Wagner Law Group to clients and others who may be interested in the subject matter, and may not be relied upon as specific legal advice.  This material is not to be construed as legal advice or legal opinions on specific facts. Under the Rules of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, this material may be considered advertising.

  

Current and back issues of this Newsletter are available on our website at:

 

www.wagnerlawgroup.com.

 

Greetings.

We've received a number of questions about benefit plans' responsibilities regarding the Anthem data breach. In the article below, you'll find some guidance regarding the responsibility of plans. 


 

We've also included questions and answers on the impact of the new actuarial tables.  

 

As always, if you have any questions or comments, please call us at (617) 357-5200 or email a member of our team

 

 

 

Best Regards, 

 

 

 

 

 

Join over 2,470 people following Marcia on Twitter for the latest ERISA and employee benefits updates.

 

 

Follow us on Twitter

 


View my profile on LinkedIn
 

 

View our videos on YouTube 

Benefit Plans' Responsibilities re Anthem Data Breach

 

 

 

Anthem, Inc., one of the country's largest health insurance companies, announced on February 5, 2015 that approximately 80 million customers have had their account information stolen. Such information included names, birthdays, medical IDs, Social Security numbers, street addresses, e-mail addresses and employment information, including income data.

 

Anthem president and CEO Joseph Swedish stated that "Anthem was the target of a very sophisticated external cyber attack."

 

Anthem has indicated that it will notify each individual whose information has been accessed and will provide free credit monitoring and identity protection. Anthem is referring customers to the following dedicated Web site for further information: http://www.anthemfacts.com/faq

 

In the meantime, are there any steps that employers should be taking with respect to their group health plans and their employees' information? 


 

With respect to fully insured plans, Anthem has the obligation to notify participants and is completely liable for the breach. Anthem may communicate general information to plan sponsors (e.g., steps being taken to address the breach). Some employers may want to send additional communications to employees to ease their fears.


For self-insured plans, Anthem, as a business associate, must notify the plan sponsor regarding the scope of the breach (i.e., identify those participants who have been affected). Because Anthem will communicate directly with the participants, the plan sponsor does not need to notify them of the breach. Some employers, however, may want to send an additional communication to affected employees to ease their fears. In accordance with servicing agreements and the business associate agreements, Anthem should be liable for the breach.

In the coming days and weeks, Anthem should communicate directly with plan sponsors to tell them how it plans to proceed, when employee communications will be sent, what information will be in the communications, steps that will be taken to mitigate harm and steps that will be taken to prevent future breaches.

Even though Anthem has indicated that it will provide free credit monitoring and identity protection, affected employees should be reminded to be vigilant and to monitor their credit reports, credit cards, etc. Also, depending on the length of the identity protection provided by Anthem, affected employees should consider purchasing identity theft protection (e.g., Identity Guard, Life Lock, TrustediD, and IdentityForce) for a longer period. Finally, affected employees should, during the coming weeks, check Anthem's website regularly for additional information.

The Wagner Law Group is expert in security and privacy matters and this case demonstrates the need to be not just vigilant, but also to have policies and protocols in place to mitigate likelihood of breach and to minimize the effect and downside if a breach were to occur.

 

 

 

Q&As from Marcia Wagner on Impact Of New Actuarial Tables

 

 

 

On October 27, 2014, the Society of Actuaries ("SOA") issued the final version of new mortality tables (RP-2014) for use by defined benefit pension plans.   The new tables were accompanied by new mortality improvement scales (MP-2014) that project the rates at which future mortality is expected to decrease.  

 

What will the general impact of these new mortality assumptions be once they are implemented by defined benefit plans?

 

The new assumptions, which are based on a study that began in 2009, confirm the intuitive observation that life expectancies in the United States have been increasing.  This makes sense, because fewer people smoke and medical care has improved.  As a result, the assumptions underlying the new mortality tables show that in comparison with the existing tables in RP-2000, the age-65 life expectancy for males has increased from 19.6 years to 21.6 years.   For age-65 females, the corresponding increase has been from 21.4 years to 23.8 years.  The respective percentage increases for males and females are 10.4% and 11.3%.

 

As life expectancy increases, so does the cost of pension annuity payments.  The SOA predicts that retirement liabilities could increase from 4% to 8%, while some actuarial firms estimate that overall cost increases will be at the high end of this range.

 

What specific plan calculations are affected by RP-2014?

 

Tax rules require the use of specified mortality assumptions to calculate plan funding, as well as lump sum conversions. 

 

In the case of funding, IRS regulations currently provide for sex-based mortality assumptions developed from the tables in RP-2000 and adjusted for mortality improvement in accordance with the improvement scales that preceded MP-2014.  IRS Notice 2013-49 contains tables based on the old mortality tables (RP-2000) that incorporate these old-style adjustments and can be used in calculating a plan's minimum required contribution for 2014 and 2015.  Therefore, the earliest the IRS will require use of the new tables is a valuation date in 2016.  When the new assumptions go into effect in 2016 or later, required plan contributions are likely to increase and funding ratios will go down.  Of course, the magnitude of these changes will be affected by the age, sex and other characteristics of a particular plan's participants.

 

The tax code mandates that the present value of certain pension benefits must not be less than the accrued benefit's present value using applicable interest rates and an approved mortality table.  This includes the calculation of lump sums.  However, for this purpose and in contrast to funding requirements, a unisex blend of male and female mortality assumptions is used.  Notice 2013-49 specifies the unisex tables to be used for 2014 and 2015.  When these tables are replaced, the longer life expectancy assumptions reflected in the new tables will mean larger lump sums.  Plan sponsors will have an incentive to encourage lump sums before RP-2014 becomes effective for tax purposes.

 

Are there any other consequences to the issuance of RP-2014?

 

There certainly are, starting with financial reporting.  In valuing pension obligations, company auditors look to the plan sponsor's best estimate with respect to mortality assumptions.  So the issue becomes whether RP-2014 represents a best estimate and is, therefore, to be favored over older tables.  Since the SOA believes that the new tables are needed to accurately measure pension obligations, there will be pressure from auditors for their immediate adoption for accounting purposes, notwithstanding the timing issues that would be involved if used for 2014 year-end measurements.

 

The updated mortality assumptions are also relevant with respect to meeting plan obligations to disclose to participants the relative value of optional forms of benefit.  Plan sponsors should ensure that the assumptions used for this purpose remain reasonable in light of the SOA's research on longevity trends.

 

Many defined benefit plan sponsors have adopted a de-risking investment strategy involving increased allocations of plan assets to fixed income as the plan's funded status, determined on the basis of accounting liabilities, improves.  If RP-2014 causes the plan's funded status to drop, plan sponsors may need to reevaluate scheduled allocations to fixed income.

 

An increase in funding liabilities can also result in higher PBGC variable rate premiums.

 

When will the IRS adopt the new mortality assumptions?

 

The conventional wisdom is that the IRS will mandate use of the RP-2014 mortality tables for 2016 after the expiration of the term set in Notice 2013-49.  Certain large corporate and public plans would be entitled to use plan-specific tables, even after 2015, due to their size.

 

This view on timing may be oversimplifying things, because the IRS cannot require use of the new tables merely by issuing a notice and will have to implement the changes by amending its regulations.  The regulatory process, including publication of proposed regulations and a period for public comment could delay adoption of the new mortality table until 2017 or 2018.

 

The IRS is under a statutory obligation to review applicable mortality rates for qualified plan funding purposes at least every 10 years, but this does not mean that adoption of the latest SOA tables are required and there are countervailing factors that may apply.  For example, the methodology and data of the SOA study that resulted in the new assumptions was criticized by other actuarial groups, such as the Academy of Actuaries, which suggested that the SOA's new tables might overstate life expectancy.  This debate could be rejoined when proposed regulations adopting the new assumptions are opened to public comment.

 

Further, the end result of the SOA's conclusions regarding improved life expectancy is to increase required contributions, thereby contradicting the objective of recent legislation, such as the Highway and Transportation Funding Act of 2014 which sought to reduce contribution requirements.  This raises the possibility that Congress could act to delay the impact of updated mortality assumptions on pension funding.  It is important to realize that the SOA's final report and updated tables do not constitute new rules and regulations.