U.S. tax and labor law
POPULARITY
4 episodes with employee retirement income security act
6 episodes with employee retirement income security act
3 episodes with employee retirement income security act
4 episodes with employee retirement income security act
2 episodes with employee retirement income security act
2 episodes with employee retirement income security act
3 episodes with employee retirement income security act
2 episodes with employee retirement income security act
2 episodes with employee retirement income security act
Church pension plans may be at risk I hate to say this because we all want to believe that one of the safest places to go is church. Unfortunately, there are church pension plans like Saint Claire's Hospital in Schenectady, New York and Saint Joseph Hospital in Rhode Island that had no or very little money left for retirees when it was time for their retirement. You may be wondering how can that be? Pension plans should be safe especially under federal law where there are protections from the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, which is commonly known as ERISA. You may also think if you know something about pension plans that employers must pay into the pension benefit guarantee corporation or what is also known as the PBGC. Unfortunately, when the government came up with the federal law on pension plans to protect retirees, there was concern about the constitutional separation of church and state and they did not want to cross that line. So they exempted churches and employers related to the church, which would include schools, hospitals and publishers. Church pension plans are allowed to contribute to the pension benefit guarantee corporation, but they're not required to and unfortunately most do not. It is sad that we cannot trust some of our religious leaders to protect our financial future. If you or someone you know works for a type of association related to a church and they have a pension plan they may want to dig deep into it to make sure it's really there. Unfortunately, there have been church pension plans that have exaggerated the returns on their investments in their pension plan and ultimately collapsed when people began retiring. It may be unfortunate but it could be wise to have a secondary retirement plan if you work for a church just to be on the safe side so you have something there in your golden years! Structured products are back from 2008 Structured products that destroyed the economy in 2008 are back once again. In 2008 there was nearly $1.8 trillion of structured products issued. For 2025, the experts are forecasting structured product issuance of $2 trillion. If you don't understand what a structure product is, it is nothing fancy other than Wall Street creating loans that hide their true value. In 2008 these were mainly mortgage-backed loans that Wall Street sold and told people there's no way that these borrowers would default on their real estate loans. Today, they are even riskier with the loans backed by weak assets such as credit card debt, lease payments on cars, airplanes, golf carts and even plastic surgery loans. Recently in Las Vegas there was a convention for four days that was packed with bankers from Wall Street and around the country that were all in the buzz about the hype of the profits they can make off of these structured products. So far investors have been safe and have not had any losses, but that will change in the years to come especially if the economy weakens. With higher demand, prices for these products are now higher and I believe overpriced. The higher demand also creates riskier investments that look similar to products with less risk but make no mistake, they have far greater risk. It appears to me that the greed on Wall Street is back and the bankers are trying to tell you that stock investing is out. They tell you that you should be putting your money into these structured products for diversification to avoid market fluctuations, but the real reason for this is the fees they make are so much higher than if you just invested in good quality equities that pay dividends and grow over the long-term. Wall Street makes nothing off of that! Jobs report seems uneventful, which is a good thing February nonfarm payrolls increased by 151k in the month, which was less than the estimate of 170k. While I wouldn't say that's a positive, it was better than last month's reading of 125k and it still shows the labor market remained healthy. Revisions to th
Learn more about Dabdoub Law Firm. https://www.longtermdisability.net Haylie Pomroy is joined by Edward Dabdoub, Founding Attorney of Dabdoub Law Firm. As an expert in disability insurance, he breaks down the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), the federal law governing most disability claims, and its impact on health, life, and disability insurance. They also talk about chronic illnesses like myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), postural tachycardia syndrome (POTS), Parkinson's Disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), and long COVID, emphasizing how disability insurance can support those dealing with these conditions. You'll also discover clear and practical advice from Haylie and Edward Dabdoub on how to get the support you need for yourself or a loved one with chronic illness. Tune in to the latest episode of the Hope and Help for Fatigue and Chronic Illness – Disability Insurance For Chronic Illness If you are interested in joining a Gulf War Illness (GWI) trial, please complete the Recruitment Registry Form. https://redcap.nova.edu/redcap/surveys/?s=Y9YF8JJWJRK8HEKL%20&_gl=1*1fipp18*_gcl_aw*R0NMLjE3MDc5MTgwMzIuRUFJYUlRb2JDaE1JeWNyUXVfcXFoQU1WU1pCYUJSM3AyQWRBRUFBWUFTQUFFZ0s1NWZEX0J3RQ..*_gcl_au*MTg2NjgwMDQ4Ni4xNzA3MTQwNzgx Donate to ME/CFS Research: https://givecampus.com/b3yrwb Learn more about INIM's Research Studies: https://www.nova.edu/nim/research-studies/index.html Sign up for the COVID-UPP Study: https://redcap.nova.edu/redcap/surveys/?s=RMEDJ7LKCX&_gl=1*1h830h7*_gcl_au*MTM2NDA0MTQyOS4xNzE1MDA0ODAy Edward Dabdoub is a distinguished disability lawyer at Dabdoub Law Firm, specializing in long-term disability cases. With a strong focus on representing clients against major insurance companies, he has secured numerous favorable outcomes. Atty. Dabdoub is known for his strategic approach and deep understanding of disability law, making him a trusted advocate for those seeking disability benefits. LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/edwarddabdoub/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/disabilitylaws Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/dabdoublawfirm/ X: https://twitter.com/ERISAdisability https://twitter.com/disabilitylaws Website: https://www.longtermdisability.net/ Call Dabdoub Law Firm for a free consultation: (888) 812–0393 Dabdoub Law Firm resources: https://www.longtermdisability.net/resources/#~bc7016d2-599f-464e-8daa-51f12a75a06d ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Enjoy our show? Please leave us a 5-star review so we can bring hope and help to others. Sign up today for our newsletter. https://nova.us4.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=419072c88a85f355f15ab1257&id=5e03a4de7d This podcast is brought to you by the Institute for Neuro-Immune Medicine. Learn more about us here. Website: https://www.nova.edu/nim/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/InstituteForNeuroImmuneMedicine Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/NSU_INIM/ Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/NSU_INIM #DisabilityInsurance #Insurance #DisabilityLaws #ERISALaw #LegalSupport #ChronicIllness #Healthcare #HealthcareLaw #ComplexIllness #MECFS #POTS #Parkinsons #LongCOVID #ALS #InsuranceClaim #HealthPodcast
Lowenstein Sandler's Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Podcast
“Top hat plans” —non-qualified deferred compensation plans that can be exempt from most of the requirements of Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 or ERISA—can be a useful tool for employers looking to provide deferred compensation benefits to certain key employees. However, care must be taken to ensure compliance with the relevant requirements of ERISA and Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code. Darren Goodman, Megan Monson, and Jessica I. Kriegsfeld of Lowenstein's Executive Compensation and Employee Benefits Group discuss how to structure such plans to make them compliant. Speakers: Darren Goodman, Vice Chair, Executive Compensation and Employee BenefitsMegan Monson, Partner, Executive Compensation and Employee BenefitsJessica Kriegsfeld, Associate, Executive Compensation and Employee Benefits
What does a law to protect worker pensions have to do with how health insurance is regulated? Far more than most people may think. The Employee Retirement Income Security Act, or ERISA, turns 50 in September. The law fundamentally changed the way the federal and state governments regulate employer-provided health insurance and continues to shape health policy in the United States.In this special episode of “What the Health?”, host and KFF Health News chief Washington correspondent Julie Rovner speaks to Larry Levitt of KFF, Paul Fronstin of the Employee Benefit Research Institute, and Ilyse Schuman of the American Benefits Council about the history of ERISA and what its future might hold.Click here for a transcript of the episode. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
ERISA and Medicare (Part 1 of 2) – Marcia Mantell of Mantell Retirement joins Chris Boyd and Jeff Perry. The segment starts off with the recognition that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) is about to turn 50 years old! Marcia outlines the history and goals of ERISA. The conversation turns to a detailed review of the Medicare program, numerous nuances and challenges people face, including the Medicare income-related monthly adjustment amount (IRMAA). For more information or to reach Chris Boyd or Jeff Perry, click the below link: https://www.wealthenhancement.com/s/advisor-teams/amr
This Day in Legal History: Vermont Abolishes SlaveryOn July 8, 1777, Vermont made history by becoming the first state to abolish slavery through the formal adoption of its new state constitution. This landmark event occurred during the American Revolutionary War, reflecting the evolving values of liberty and human rights among the colonists. Vermont's constitution, drafted in Windsor, boldly declared that all men are born equally free and independent, explicitly prohibiting slavery. This was a pioneering move, as the nation itself was still grappling with the institution of slavery, which would not be federally abolished until the 13th Amendment in 1865. The framers of Vermont's constitution were influenced by Enlightenment ideals and a commitment to individual freedom. Their decision set a precedent and provided a moral compass for other states and the future United States. Vermont's abolition of slavery marked an early and significant step toward the broader movement for abolition and civil rights in America. This moment in legal history underscores the state's progressive stance and its contribution to the fight for human dignity and equality.Boeing has agreed to plead guilty to criminal fraud conspiracy and pay a $243.6 million fine to settle a U.S. Justice Department investigation into two fatal 737 MAX crashes in Indonesia and Ethiopia that killed 346 people. This plea deal, pending judicial approval, marks Boeing as a convicted felon. The settlement has faced criticism from victims' families who demand a trial and stricter penalties. The guilty plea endangers Boeing's eligibility for government contracts but spares the company from a potentially damaging trial. The agreement also mandates Boeing to invest $455 million over three years to enhance safety and compliance, and imposes an independent monitor to oversee these efforts. Additionally, Boeing's board will meet with the victims' families. The DOJ's charges stem from Boeing's false statements to the FAA about the MCAS software linked to the crashes. The deal does not protect Boeing from future investigations or shield its executives. The court will finalize the plea agreement by July 19.Boeing's criminal fraud conspiracy charge revolves around their false representations to the FAA regarding the MCAS software, designed to push the airplane's nose down under specific conditions. This misrepresentation significantly contributed to the crashes, highlighting a grave breach of regulatory trust and aircraft safety protocols.Boeing to plead guilty to fraud in US probe of fatal 737 MAX crashes | ReutersA lawsuit challenging a Biden administration rule that permits socially conscious investing by employee retirement plans will be a significant test for how courts review federal regulations after a recent Supreme Court decision. The New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will hear the case brought by 25 Republican-led states against the U.S. Department of Labor's 2022 rule, which allows 401(k) and other plans to use environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG) factors as tiebreakers in investment decisions. U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk initially upheld the rule based on the Chevron deference doctrine, which the Supreme Court has since overturned, now requiring courts to independently assess agency rules. This change is expected to impact various government regulations.The core issue is whether the 1974 Employee Retirement Income Security Act permits considering non-financial factors in investment decisions. Critics argue that such factors threaten workers' retirement savings. The 5th Circuit, known for its conservative stance, may nullify the rule even without Chevron deference. The outcome will set a precedent for future challenges to federal agency powers and regulations. The case highlights the ongoing debate over the scope of federal agency authority and the influence of judicial interpretation on regulatory policies.Republican challenge to ESG investing rule could showcase risk to US agency powers | ReutersTesla shareholders will appear in court to contest a record-breaking $7 billion legal fee request linked to CEO Elon Musk's $56 billion pay package. This fee, sought by investor Richard Tornetta and his legal team after winning a lawsuit that voided Musk's 2018 stock option pay package, has been called "outlandish" by many Tesla shareholders. Tornetta's attorneys argue they are entitled to 11% of the value returned to Tesla, approximately 266 million shares worth about $67 billion, asserting that this percentage is modest by Delaware legal standards. They seek payment in Tesla shares, equating to $370,000 per hour worked.Tesla and its shareholders argue that the fee is disproportionate and unprecedented, vastly exceeding the current highest shareholder litigation fee of $688 million from an Enron class action. Tesla contends that the fee should be as low as $13.6 million, especially since shareholders recently ratified Musk's pay package, nullifying the supposed benefit of Tornetta's legal victory. The case will be heard by Chancellor Kathaleen McCormick, with a decision expected to take weeks or months. This ruling could set a significant precedent for future shareholder litigation fees.Tesla investors to urge judge to reject record $7 bln legal fee in Musk pay case | ReutersClosing arguments in the corruption trial of Senator Bob Menendez are set to begin after more than seven weeks of testimony. Federal prosecutors allege that Menendez accepted bribes, including cash, gold bars, and payments for mortgages and cars, in exchange for aiding Egypt in securing U.S. military assistance and helping New Jersey businessmen with their legal and business interests. Evidence presented included gold bars and $480,000 in cash found at Menendez's home. Menendez, who has pleaded not guilty to 16 charges including bribery and fraud, is accused of using his wife, Nadine Menendez, as an intermediary for the bribes. Nadine Menendez, also pleading not guilty, will face trial separately in August. The case has significantly impacted Menendez's political career, leading to his resignation as chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Despite running for re-election as an independent, his chances are slim.Key testimonies included statements from two New Jersey prosecutors and insurance broker Jose Uribe, who claimed to have bribed Menendez. Uribe testified that Menendez acknowledged helping him avoid state probes. Menendez's defense argued the cash and gold found were related to his wife's activities and their cultural background, citing Menendez's Cuban heritage as a reason for keeping cash at home. Menendez declined to testify. Closing arguments from prosecutors will start in the early afternoon and are expected to continue into Tuesday, followed by the defense's closing arguments.Senator Menendez's corruption trial heads to closing arguments | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe
The ADA is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review a decision from a lower appeals court on the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 that limits states' traditional authority to regulate health care and insurance. This win would be big for all dentists who take PPO Plans. Go ADA!Support the Show.
In the first half of 2024, though the markets are doing well, inflation is cooling, unemployment is near record lows, and the economy is strong, there continues to be an undercurrent of anxiety among investors. That's likely due to the sense that there are a lot of uncertainties out there, including the Fed's rate-cut timing, the looming election, potential tax changes, the nation's rising debt load, and more. On this episode, Daniel Stein, who manages three Charles Schwab branches, joins host Mike Townsend for a wide-ranging discussion about investor concerns and offers solid suggestions for navigating them. Dan also provides strategies for building a bond portfolio to capture today's strong rates while also planning for rate changes in the future, shares insights on where to look for potential opportunities spurred by the growing interest in artificial intelligence, and offers ideas for how investors can position themselves in anticipation of potential tax code changes in 2025.In his Washington update, Mike discusses bills moving through Congress to create a regulatory framework for cryptocurrency and to discourage the Fed from launching a central bank digital currency. He also provides an update on a setback for the SEC, which saw a new rule for hedge funds rejected by the courts.For more reading on one of the topics discussed on today's episode, see the Schwab Center for Financial Research's latest deep dive into the implications of large federal deficits and the growing national debt: "Deficits, Debt, and Markets: Myths vs. Realities."WashingtonWise is an original podcast for investors from Charles Schwab. For more on the series, visit schwab.com/WashingtonWise.If you enjoy the show, please leave a ★★★★★ rating or review on Apple Podcasts Important DisclosuresThe policy analysis provided by the Charles Schwab & Co., Inc., does not constitute and should not be interpreted as an endorsement of any political party.The information provided here is for general informational purposes only and should not be considered an individualized recommendation or personalized investment advice. All expressions of opinion are subject to changes without notice in reaction to shifting market, economic, and geopolitical conditions. Data herein is obtained from what are considered reliable sources; however, its accuracy, completeness, or reliability cannot be guaranteed. Supporting documentation for any claims or statistical information is available upon request.Examples provided are for illustrative purposes only and not intended to be reflective of results you can expect to achieve.Investing involves risk, including loss of principal.All names and market data shown above are for illustrative purposes only and are not a recommendation, offer to sell, or a solicitation of an offer to buy any security. Supporting documentation for any claims or statistical information is available upon request.The information and content provided herein is general in nature and is for informational purposes only. It is not intended, and should not be construed, as a specific recommendation, individualized tax, legal, or investment advice. Tax laws are subject to change, either prospectively or retroactively. Where specific advice is necessary or appropriate, individuals should contact their own professional tax and investment advisors or other professionals (CPA, Financial Planner, Investment Manager) to help answer questions about specific situations or needs prior to taking any action based upon this information.Digital currencies [such as bitcoin] are highly volatile and not backed by any central bank or government. Digital currencies lack many of the regulations and consumer protections that legal-tender currencies and regulated securities have. Due to the high level of risk, investors should view digital currencies as a purely speculative instrument.Diversification and asset allocation strategies do not ensure a profit and cannot protect against losses in a declining market.Performance may be affected by risks associated with non-diversification, including investments in specific countries or sectors. Additional risks may also include, but are not limited to, investments in foreign securities, especially emerging markets, real estate investment trusts (REITs), fixed income, small capitalization securities and commodities. Each individual investor should consider these risks carefully before investing in a particular security or strategy.Currency trading is speculative, volatile and not suitable for all investors.Money market funds are neither insured nor guaranteed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or any other government agency. Although the fund seeks to preserve the value of an investment at $1.00 per share, it is possible to lose money by investing in the fund.Roth IRA conversions require a 5-year holding period before earnings can be withdrawn tax free and subsequent conversions will require their own 5-year holding period. In addition, earnings distributions prior to age 59 1/2 are subject to an early withdrawal penalty.A bond ladder, depending on the types and amount of securities within the ladder, may not ensure adequate diversification of your investment portfolio. This potential lack of diversification may result in heightened volatility of the value of your portfolio. As compared to other fixed income products and strategies, engaging in a bond ladder strategy may potentially result in future reinvestment at lower interest rates and may necessitate higher minimum investments to maintain cost-effectiveness. Evaluate whether a bond ladder and the securities held within it are consistent with your investment objective, risk tolerance and financial circumstances.Investors should consider, before investing, whether the investor's or designated beneficiary's home state offers any state tax or other state benefits such as financial aid, scholarship funds, and protection from creditors that are only available in such state's qualified tuition programInvestment Research for Schwab Investing Themes™ is provided by Charles Schwab Investment Management, Inc. (“CSIM”). CSIM is an affiliate of Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. (“Schwab”). Both CSIM and Schwab are separate entities and subsidiaries of The Charles Schwab Corporation.Schwab Investing Themes is for informational purposes only; it is not intended to be investment advice (including fiduciary advice as defined under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act or the Internal Revenue Code) or a recommendation of any stock. Neither the tax-loss harvesting strategy, nor any discussion herein, is intended as tax advice and does not represent that any particular tax consequences will be obtained. Tax-loss harvesting involves certain risks including unintended tax implications. Investors should consult with their tax advisors and refer to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) website at www.irs.gov about the consequences of tax-loss harvesting.Forecasts contained herein are for illustrative purposes only, may be based upon proprietary research and are developed through analysis of historical public data.Indexes are unmanaged, do not incur management fees, costs, and expenses and cannot be invested in directly. For more information on indexes, please see Schwab.com/IndexDefinitions.Past performance is no guarantee of future results and the opinions presented cannot be viewed as an indicator of future performance.The Schwab Center for Financial Research is a division of Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. Apple, the Apple logo, iPad, iPhone, and Apple Podcasts are trademarks of Apple Inc., registered in the U.S. and other countries. App Store is a service mark of Apple Inc.Spotify and the Spotify logo are registered trademarks of Spotify AB.0624-7YJZ
Welcome back, one and all, to NABIP's Healthcare Happy Hour podcast. Earlier this week, the association submitted our response to a Request for Information, or RFI, from the House Education and Workforce Committee. The RFI focused on the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (much more commonly referred to as ERISA). In light of the law's 50th anniversary, the committee issued this RFI to stakeholders to see what areas surrounding ERISA that may benefit from new legislation to reflect how healthcare is delivered today, so it is crucial that NABIP be a part of this conversation. Additionally, this will be the final episode of the Healthcare Happy Hour hosted and produced by NABIP's Dan Parker. We will all miss “the Voice of NABIP,” who has been a staple of the podcast for the last few years – but we are also excited about what the future holds for the Happy Hour!
Ever feel overwhelmed by the maze of retirement planning? You're not alone. Join Peter Raskin as he ventures into the world of Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs). Born from the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, IRAs are now a cornerstone of savvy financial planning. Peter navigates through the complexities of IRAs, covering everything from … Read More Read More
True or False-To open an IRA you need to have earned income. False.One exception to the rule -A spousal IRA lets couples save for retirement even if only one spouse works and has earned income. History The IRA became law in !974 under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.The IRA initially allowed workers to save for retirement and take a tax-deduction for their contribution. But there was a catch. In order to open and fund an IRA each individual must have earned income.However, married women who were stay-at-home moms in 1974 weren't considered “working.” Therefore, they were prohibited from saving for their own retirement. Finally in 1996, after several women senators fought to have homemakers be able to save the same full amount, the Spousal IRA became law. What is a spousal IRA? A spousal IRA is an individual retirement account to which a working spouse contributes to an IRA on behalf of a non working spouse who earns little or no income.By spouse I mean a married couple and that includes same sex married couples. It can be a regular IRA or a Roth IRA. So this is the exception to the rule that a person must have earned income in order to contribute to an IRA. How spousal IRAs work Spousal IRAs are just a typical IRA, but used by a person who's married. That is, each spouse can use traditional or Roth IRAs, or both. The key is that the working spouse must earn at least as much money as is contributed to all of the couple's IRAs. Example Say one spouse, Vicki, is a CPA and makes $150,000 a year. Her husband, Kevin, stays at home with their 2 children ages 2 and 4. Vicki, working spouse can contribute to her regular or Roth IRA, up to $6500 as of 2023, and can also contribute $6500 to Kevin's regular or Roth IRA. If either is over age 50, they can contribute $7500 each to either their regular or Roth IRA. In our example , Vicki needs to earn over $13,000 to contribute $6500 to her IRA and $6500 to her husband's IRA. She makes $150,000 a year so no problem. Vicki could easily contribute $7500 to each account if they were over age 50. Spousal IRA rules to consider -The couple must file taxes as “married filing jointly.” -Your Adjusted Gross Income must be under $228,000 for tax year 2023 when filing taxes as “married filing jointly.” -A nonworking spouse can open either a traditional IRA or a Roth IRA. -The spousal IRA is not co-owned. It's in the name of, and owned by, the nonworking spouse.So in our example Kevin would own the IRA (whether it is regular or Roth) that Vicki contributed to on his behalf. -There is no age limit on contributing to a Spousal IRA whether it is a traditional IRA or Roth IRAs. Why do I bring up IRA's and Roth IRA's a lot? 1)In 2021, only 15% of US households that could contribute to an IRA did NOT contribute to an IRA or Roth IRA. 2)The #1 thing people regret at age 65 was not saving for retirement sooner. Link to Ep.107: Why My Dad Wants To Marry Roth IRA's https://www.dadsdaughtersanddollars.com/podcast-financial-independence/episode/1e08ea10/ep-107-why-my-dad-wants-to-marry-roth-iras
The plaintiffs in Utah v. Walsh filed a motion to halt implementation of the Department of Labor's new rule, which provides increased flexibility for retirement plan fiduciaries to consider environmental, social, or governance (ESG) factors when making investment decisions and exercising shareholder rights. This coalition of 26 states, energy companies, a trade association, and private individuals argues that the new rule undermines the protections established by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). In this webinar, Jared Kelson, Counsel for Plaintiffs Liberty Energy Inc., Liberty Oilfield Services LLC, and Western Energy Alliance, will provide an update on the ongoing litigation and discuss the broader implications of ESG considerations in retirement planning.Featuring: Jared Kelson, Counsel, Boyden Gray & AssociatesBrett Swearingen, Associate, Miller JohnsonVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.
House Republicans are continuing their efforts to oppose a US Labor Department rule on environmental, social, and governance retirement investing, despite failing to override President Joe Biden's veto of a resolution to kill it. Republican lawmakers are now working on legislation with former DOL Secretary Eugene Scalia that would modify the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to ban retirement plan fiduciaries from considering non-pecuniary factors such as ESG when investing in retirement accounts. The new bill, the Ensuring Sound Guidance Act, is expected to go through the House Financial Services Committee and the Education and the Workforce panel, led by Virginia Foxx, which has jurisdiction over ERISA. The move comes as Republicans seek to counter the ESG movement, with some arguing that it politicises Americans' retirement accounts and represents “woke capitalism”. The bill, which would require retirement account managers to consider only pecuniary factors when investing, would mark a dramatic escalation in the GOP's opposition to environmentally and socially conscious investing. The Republican position on ESG investing faces added scrutiny from benefits advisers, who favor a process-based legal strategy to ERISA law.To be clear, the Department of Labor rule would merely permit investment managers to consider ESG issues if they so choose. No such considerations are being compelled and no measures to mandate ESG considerations have been seriously proposed. Once again the rule would merely permit managers to consider such non-pecuniary factors when choosing investments. Anti-ESG Investing Effort Pivots to New Republican-Backed BillThe US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has sued Binance, the world's largest cryptocurrency exchange, and its CEO Changpeng Zhao (CZ) for allegedly breaking US derivatives rules. The regulator has accused Binance of failing to register with it and failing to implement an effective anti-money laundering programme. The CFTC claims that Binance has deliberately put profits ahead of the law and made no effort to comply with US regulations. It also accused Binance's CEO, Changpeng Zhao, of ordering the destruction of documents, instructing US customers to use VPNs, and directing clients with US connections to open accounts under the names of shell companies. While the CFTC cannot bring criminal charges against firms or individuals, it can seek hefty fines and other penalties. Binance has called the CFTC lawsuit “unexpected and disappointing” and claimed it has been working with the regulator for over two years.Binance, CEO Zhao Sued by US Over ‘Sham' Compliance Measures (4)Alphabet, the parent company of Google, has requested a US federal judge to dismiss a Justice Department lawsuit alleging that Google illegally abused its dominance of online advertising. The government filed the ad tech lawsuit in January, claiming that Google should be forced to sell its ad manager suite, but Google denied any wrongdoing. The company argued that the case should be thrown out because the government erred in defining the online advertising market and excluded powerful competitors such as Facebook. Google also stated that the government's estimate of Google's ad exchange as having "more than 50%" of the market fell short of the 70% needed to allege market power. The case is being heard by U.S. Judge Leonie Brinkema in the Eastern District of Virginia. The Justice Department's ad tech lawsuit follows a separate lawsuit filed in 2020, accusing Google of violating antitrust law to maintain its dominance in search. That case goes to trial in September.Alphabet seeks dismissal of US antitrust lawsuit over Google's online ads | ReutersConcord Law School at Purdue University Global, the first online law school in the United States, is seeking a rule change from the Indiana Supreme Court that would allow its graduates to take the state's bar exam. Currently, California is the only state that permits online law school graduates to sit for the bar. The Indiana Supreme Court is now seeking public comments on the proposal. Purdue law dean Martin Pritikin said that the change would make legal education more accessible to people living in rural and underserved areas. The court is expected to consider the proposal in the coming months.Online law school seeks bar exam eligibility in Indiana | ReutersKnock knock …. Who's there? … My column … My column who? … My column about how we can learn and improve from the French tax code. The idea that modernizing the US tax system is insurmountable seems to be behind every accountant and tax attorney's grimace and tears when discussing the complexity of the code and filing process. And yet, we have an alternative system just across the pond. The method of processing income tax returns in France is automated and relies entirely on an algorithm written more than 30 years ago and designed to run on a processor a third as powerful as the one that counts your steps in your cell phone. France has an automated tax filing system that relies on an algorithm written and maintained by the French Public Finances Directorate. Despite an aging technical infrastructure, French taxpayers use a portal with pre-filled forms, and the algorithm handles all calculations. The French tax code is released under a free software license called CeCILL 2.1, which has been adapted from the GNU General Public License. The French tax code is not simple, as the computation algorithm has 92,000 lines of code. France has undertaken projects to modernize the tax code by reverse engineering the algorithm from publicly available parts and implementing in software the rules of the actual French tax code. The French tax code experience teaches the US to standardize and formalize its tax code, make it algorithm ready, commit to release all algorithms and software code used in public projects, and demand simplicity, automation, and transparency from the government without huge expenditures. A sea change in technology is coming to the tax world, let's make sure a rising tide raises all boats. Here's How We Can Learn and Improve From the French Tax Code Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe
ERISA Plan Must be Enforced as Written When Anthony Hayes' employment ended, so did his employer-provided life insurance. Hayes then missed the deadline to convert his coverage to an individual policy. After Hayes died, his surviving spouse filed suit seeking relief under a provision of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act allowing "a participant or beneficiary" of an employee benefit plan "to recover benefits due" "under the terms of [the] plan." In Kathy Hayes v. Prudential Insurance Company Of America, No. 21-2406, United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit (February 23, 2023) Ms. Hayes sought benefits under an employee life insurance policy based on equity - that the decedent was too ill to convert his employee life policy to a personal policy even though he did not comply with the requirement of the ERISA plan. FACTS Hayes worked as an environmental engineer for DSM North America, Inc., and had an employer-provided life insurance policy with defendant Prudential Insurance Company. Prudential was both the insurer and the administrator of the employer-provided benefit plan. The plan gave Prudential "the sole discretion to interpret [the plan's] terms . . . and to determine eligibility for benefits." --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/barry-zalma/support
ERISA Plan Must be Enforced as Written When Anthony Hayes' employment ended, so did his employer-provided life insurance. Hayes then missed the deadline to convert his coverage to an individual policy. After Hayes died, his surviving spouse filed suit seeking relief under a provision of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act allowing "a participant or beneficiary" of an employee benefit plan "to recover benefits due" "under the terms of [the] plan." In Kathy Hayes v. Prudential Insurance Company Of America, No. 21-2406, United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit (February 23, 2023) Ms. Hayes sought benefits under an employee life insurance policy based on equity - that the decedent was too ill to convert his employee life policy to a personal policy even though he did not comply with the requirement of the ERISA plan. FACTS Hayes worked as an environmental engineer for DSM North America, Inc., and had an employer-provided life insurance policy with defendant Prudential Insurance Company. Prudential was both the insurer and the administrator of the employer-provided benefit plan. The plan gave Prudential "the sole discretion to interpret [the plan's] terms . . . and to determine eligibility for benefits." In 2015, Hayes lost his job because of medical issues and his employer-provided life insurance coverage ended. The terms of the plan, however, allowed former employees to convert employer-provided coverage to an individual policy. To do so, the plan required Hayes to initiate the conversion process "by the later of" 31 days after his employer-provided coverage ended or 15 days after receiving "written notice of the conversion privilege." Hayes did not contact Prudential about converting his life insurance policy until 26 days after the conversion deadline. Hayes' health continued to deteriorate, and he died in June 2016. Plaintiff submitted a request for benefits, which Prudential denied. The claim administrator explained Hayes' employer-provided "coverage terminated on 11/16/15," and although Hayes "was eligible to convert his Group Basic Life Insurance," "there is no conversion policy on file." The district court entered judgment for Prudential. ANALYSIS ERISA regulates employee benefit plans by establishing standards of conduct, responsibility, and obligation for fiduciaries of those plans, and by providing for appropriate remedies, sanctions, and ready access to the federal courts. ERISA creates a wide range of public and private enforcement mechanisms. Plaintiff countered that she is not asserting that the plan terms should be rewritten. Instead, she asks the Court to apply the doctrine of equitable tolling to allow for an exception to the life insurance conversion deadline set forth in the policy because Hayes was incapacitated during the conversion period. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/barry-zalma/support
Webcast URL: https://knowledgewebcasts.com/know-portfolio/erisa-class-action-developments-cle-2022/ The recent months have seen a significant increase in the number of Employee Retirement Income Security Act, as amended (ERISA), class action filings concerning the alleged mismanagement of 401(k), 403(b), and Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs). As court rulings continue to emerge and reshape the regulatory landscape, it is imperative for plan sponsors and fiduciaries to revisit their existing ERISA plans to ensure compliance. Likewise, they should stay updated with any developments in this field of law to avoid potential liability risks. Join distinguished ERISA litigators Jonathan Sulds (Greenberg Traurig, LLP) and David R. Johanson (Hawkins Parnell & Young LLP) as they provide a comprehensive discussion of the retirement plan mismanagement issues that could result in ERISA class action. Speakers, among other things, will also offer critical strategies in facing the current tidal wave of fees and litigation. For more information please click on the webcast URL at the top of this description.
Webcast URL: https://knowledgewebcasts.com/know-portfolio/erisa-class-action-developments-cle-2022/ The recent months have seen the significant increase in the number of Employee Retirement Income Security Act, as amended (ERISA), class action filings concerning the alleged mismanagement of 401(k), 403(b and Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs). As court rulings continue to emerge and reshape the regulatory landscape, it is imperative for plan sponsors and fiduciaries to revisit their existing ERISA plans to ensure compliance. Likewise, they should stay updated with any developments in this field of law to avoid potential liability risks. Join distinguished ERISA litigators Jonathan Sulds (Greenberg Traurig, LLP) and David R. Johanson (Hawkins Parnell & Young LLP) as they provide a comprehensive discussion of the retirement plan mismanagement issues that could result in ERISA class action. Speakers, among other things, will also offer critical strategies in facing the current tidal wave of fees and litigation. For any more information please click on the webcast URL at the top of this description.
DaVita is the leading provider of dialysis treatment in the United States. Marietta Memorial Hospital Employee Health Benefit Plan is a self-funded plan governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”). Patient A is an anonymous individual with end-stage renal disease who is a member of the plan and has been receiving treatment by DaVita since April 15, 2017. The Plan defines three tiers of reimbursement, and dialysis providers are categorically in the lowest tier and are considered out of network, entitling them to the lowest level of reimbursement relative to all other providers. DaVita challenged the Plan as violating the Medicare Secondary Payer Act, which prohibits health plans from treating individuals with kidney failure differently in eligibility or access to benefits. The district court dismissed all of DaVita's claims, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed in part, finding that DaVita had plausibly alleged that the Plan engaged in unlawful discrimination. The case was decided on June 21, 2022. The Court held that Section 1395(y)(b)(1)(C) does not authorize disparate-impact liability, and the Marietta Plan's coverage terms for outpatient dialysis do not violate §1395(y)(b)(1)(C) because those terms apply uniformly to all covered individuals. Justice Kavanaugh delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Breyer, Alito, Gorsuch, and Barrett joined. Justice Kagan filed an opinion dissenting in part, in which Justice Sotomayor joined. Credit: Oyez, LII Supreme Court Resources, Justia Supreme Court Center, available at: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2021/20-1641 --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/scotus-opinions/support
Episode 013 The role taxes play in your business, Featuring Jared Johnson, Attorney-CPA – Alpha Tax with Matt Chancey As an attorney-CPA, Jared Johnson provides tax representation and guidance on complex tax laws and disputes, corporate transactions, reporting, asset protection and cross-border issues. He regularly assists in compliance with Internal Revenue Code as well as the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). Jared works alongside high-net-worth business owners throughout the business lifecycle, from incubation and startup through growth and dissolution. In addition to his guidance on tax issues such as ERISA and 409A matters, he provides strategic direction on planning, formation, governance, drafting and reporting for corporations, partnerships and joint ventures. In our conversation, Jared talks what led him to becoming an attorney and CPA and how taxes play a role in your business. Other topics we discuss include: The best clients to work with The pros and cons of onshore and offshore Why you should be cautious of tax treaties What would happen if the world implemented a flat tax The importance of having regular communication about your taxes Why you should be careful with digital currency Enjoy the show! Connect with Jared: Website: https://www.whiteandwilliams.com/people-JaredJohnson Connect with Matt: Website: https://www.mattchanceylive.com/home1615404071938 Matthew Chancey is a Registered Representative of Coastal Equities, Inc. and an Investment Advisory Representative of Coastal Investment Advisors, Inc. Neither Coastal Equities, Inc. nor Coastal Investment Advisors, Inc. is affiliated with Micel Financial LLC. Investment Advisory Services are offered through Coastal Investment Advisors, Inc., and securities are offered through Coastal Equities, Inc., Member FINRA/SIPC, 1201 N. Orange St., Suite 729, Wilmington, DE 19801. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
QUESTION PRESENTED:Whether allegations that a defined-contribution retirement plan paid or charged its participants fees that substantially exceeded fees for alternative available investment products or services are sufficient to state a claim against plan fiduciaries for breach of the duty of prudence under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. § 1104(a)(1)(B).Date Proceedings and Orders (key to color coding)Jun 19 2020 | Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due July 23, 2020)Jul 13 2020 | Motion to extend the time to file a response from July 23, 2020 to August 24, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.Jul 14 2020 | Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including August 24, 2020.Aug 24 2020 | Brief of respondents Northwestern University, et al. in opposition filed.Sep 09 2020 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/29/2020.Sep 09 2020 | Reply of petitioners April Hughes, et al. filed. (Distributed)Oct 05 2020 | The Acting Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.May 25 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of United States filed.Jun 08 2021 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/24/2021.Jun 08 2021 | Supplemental brief of respondents Northwestern University, et al. filed. (Distributed)Jun 10 2021 | Supplemental brief of petitioners April Hughes, et al. filed. (Distributed)Jul 01 2021 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 7/1/2021.Jul 02 2021 | Petition GRANTED. Justice Barrett took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.Jul 22 2021 | Motion for an extension of time to file the briefs on the merits filed.Jul 28 2021 | Motion to extend the time to file the briefs on the merits granted. The time to file the joint appendix and petitioners' brief on the merits is extended to and including September 3, 2021. The time to file respondents' brief on the merits is extended to and including October 21, 2021.Aug 02 2021 | Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, April Hughes, et al.Sep 03 2021 | Brief of petitioners April Hughes, et al. filed.Sep 03 2021 | Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed)Sep 08 2021 | Blanket Consent filed by Respondent, Northwestern University, et al.Sep 09 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of American Association for Justice filed.Sep 10 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Investment Law Scholars filed.Sep 10 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of United States filed.Sep 10 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Service Employees International Union filed.Sep 10 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Samuel Halpern filed.Sep 10 2021 | Brief amici curiae of AARP, et al. filed.Sep 20 2021 | SET FOR ARGUMENT on Monday, December 6, 2021.Sep 27 2021 | Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 7th Circuit.Sep 27 2021 | Record received from the U.S.C.A. 7th Circuit is electronic and located on Pacer. Also received 1 Sealed document which is electronically filed.Oct 01 2021 | Motion of the Acting Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae, for divided argument, and for enlargement of time for oral argument filed.Oct 21 2021 | Brief of respondents Northwestern University, et al. filed.Oct 27 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Euclid Fiduciary filed. (Distributed)Oct 28 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, et al. filed. (Distributed)Oct 28 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Investment Company Institute filed. (Distributed)Oct 28 2021 | Brief amici curiae of American Council on Education and 17 Other Higher Education Organizations filed. (Distributed)Oct 28 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Committee on Investment of Employee Benefit Assets filed. (Distributed)Oct 28 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America filed. (Distributed)Oct 28 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of American Benefits Council filed. (Distributed)Oct 29 2021 | CIRCULATEDNov 08 2021 | Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae, for divided argument, and for enlargement of time for oral argument GRANTED, and the time is allotted as follows: 20 minutes for petitioners, 15 minutes for the Solicitor General, and 35 minutes for respondents. Justice Barrett took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion.Nov 19 2021 | Reply of petitioners April Hughes, et al. filed. (Distributed)★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★
A case in which the Court will decide whether allegations that a defined-contribution retirement plan paid or charged its participants fees substantially higher than those for alternative available investment products or services are sufficient to state a claim against plan fiduciaries for breach of the duty of prudence under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).
Ian Begley from The Putback on SNY joins us to discuss sports in the headlines.
What does the future hold for 401(k) and other workplace retirement plans? Good question, and I am excited to have Josh Cohen, Head of Institutional Defined Contribution at PGIM and the host of the podcast “The Accidental Plan Sponsor” join me today. We take a few minutes to set the stage with some important retirement plan trends and milestones, then we jump into where we go from here. Josh shares the good, as well as where he things workplace retirement plans can improve in the future. Good stuff, and hope you get as much out of the conversation as I did! Guest Bio Joshua R. Cohen, CFA, is a Managing Director in PGIM's Institutional Relationship Group (IRG). Josh provides expert counsel and thought leadership to large Defined Contribution plans on investment issues ranging from plan design, Qualified Default Investment Alternatives (QDIA), implications of regulatory change and implementation. He works on developing innovative solutions and thought leadership to help plan participants accumulate the wealth needed for their retirement. Highly regarded throughout the industry and a recognized DC thought leader, Josh served a three-year term (2013-2015) as a member of the Department of Labor's ERISA Advisory Council on policies and regulations affecting employee benefit plans governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. In 2016, Josh was identified by Chief Investment Officer (CIO) magazine as one of the world's most influential investment thought leaders by being named to the annual Knowledge Brokers list. This marked the fourth consecutive year he received this recognition. Josh earned his BA from the University of Michigan and an MBA from the University of Chicago. He holds the Chartered Financial Analyst (CFA) designation. 401(k) Fridays Podcast Overview Struggling with a fiduciary issue, looking for strategies to improve employee retirement outcomes or curious about the impact of current events on your retirement plan? We've had conversations with retirement industry leaders to address these and other relevant topics! You can easily explore over 200 prior on-demand audio interviews here. Don't forget to subscribe as we release a new episode each Friday!
In this podcast, Nonnie Shivers and Jessica Kuester discuss six common types of vaccination incentive programs. The speakers address the employment law concerns raised by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's guidance of May 28, 2021, as well as issues arising under the Americans with Disabilities Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The speakers also explain the impact of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 on each type of vaccine incentive program.
SHOW LESS#RetirementPlanning can seem boring, but when you have our #FinanceFriday guest Seth Bassoff CEPA®, APMA®, CRPS®, CRPC®, RFC® on your side, you can do some very cool things. Find Seth is a financial advisor and senior vice president of the Adelson Group, a private wealth advisory practice of Ameriprise Financial Services. Seth's impressive biography is just one reason I brought him on today's #FinanceFriday; he is also an old friend of mine. Watch our video where we discuss retirement planning and tax savings below. https://www.ameripriseadvisors.com/se... The first topic we go over is retirement planning and the most beneficial retirement plans that a small business owner can have. Most small business owners have SEP or Simple IRAs; however, Seth introduces us to ERISA, Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. 401ks are an example of an ERISA-qualified plan. SEPS and SIMPLES are designed for certain types of people and contribution levels, while in contrast, ERISA qualified plans offer a big opportunity for savings and tax savings. Consulting with Seth can help you plan for your retirement. Any #smallbusiness can take advantage of ERISA plans, including a sole proprietor or LLC who only has one employee, yourself. The amount you can contribute and divert away from tax is huge in comparison to other retirement plans. Seth shares a story of a client who was offered this retirement plan, and after understanding the tax-saving implications, asked Seth, "Is this legal?" The plan saves you so much money it feels illegal, but Seth assures that it is all very legal. It's not a tax technique; it's written n the code. However, you should make sure to partner with some like Seth, who does this consulting daily. Seth and I urge you to get informed and educated not these matters before you jump in, and Seth can help you do that. Watch the video above to hear more about Seth's expertise regarding tax savings and retirement planning, as well as some personal interests of his. Check out last #FinanceFriday, and have a great weekend. As always, if you're looking for a fantastic CPA to help grow your business and wealth, set up a zoom call with me. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/bettehochbergercpa/support
Host of the Maximize Business Value Podcast, Tom Bronson, is joined in this episode by Jason Luter, Attorney with Faegre Drinker, who specializes in employee stock ownership plans or ESOPs. The two discuss ESOP basics including what it is, the fiduciary standards and how it differs from other exit planning options. Tom emphasizes one of the biggest benefits is that it’s an internal transaction, so the transition process can happen smoothly. Listen now to get the inside scoop on ESOPs!Jason Luter offers a direct approach and matter-of-fact counsel on all aspects of employee benefits, executive compensation and transactional matters with Faegre Drinker. Fortune 500 and privately held companies, private equity groups, middle-market and emerging growth and venture capital companies all turn to Jason for trusted counsel on employee benefit plan design, deferred compensation plans, cash- and equity-based incentive plans, and severance arrangements. He also advises on tax qualification, error correction, fiduciary responsibility, employee stock ownership plans (ESOPs), and employee benefits and executive compensation aspects of corporate transactions, in addition to litigation involving the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). Jason guides clients in ESOP transactions, including seller-financed and leveraged and non leveraged buyouts as part of ownership succession transactions.Tom Bronson is the founder and President of Mastery Partners, a company that helps business owners maximize business value, design exit strategy, and transition their business on their terms. Mastery utilizes proven techniques and strategies that dramatically improve business value that was developed during Tom’s career 100 business transactions as either a business buyer or seller. As a business owner himself, he has been in your situation a hundred times, and he knows what it takes to craft the right strategy. Bronson is passionate about helping business owners and has the experience to do it. Want to chat more or think Tom can help you? Reach out at tom@masterypartners.com or check out his book, Maximize Business Value, Begin with The Exit in Mind (2020).Mastery Partners, where our mission is to equip business owners to Maximize Business Value so they can transition their business on their terms. Our mission was born from the lessons we’ve learned from over 100 business transactions, which fuels our desire to share our experiences and wisdom so you can succeed.
When a chronic condition prevents you from working, you might find yourself filling out a disability claim. But what happens when it’s denied? And how can you fight to receive your health benefits?All of this ties back to ERISA, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. This week’s guest, ERISA lawyer Glenn Kantor, helps us understand how ERISA impacts patients on employer-sponsored health plans.Plus, a look inside the fight for marriage equality within the disability community. Kaitlin Kerr shares her story and explains how patients with disabilities could lose their Social Security Disability Insurance upon entering an interabled marriage. Guest:Glenn KantorFounding Partner, Kantor & Kantor LLP.Glenn Kantor is founding partner of Kantor & Kantor LLP. As a young attorney, Glenn saw the injustice of wrongful insurance denials and created a law firm to represent individuals seeking to obtain their rightful benefits. Glenn is committed to ensuring that clients receive the benefits they are entitled to under their insurance policies or group health plans.Glenn also represents family members to obtain wrongfully withheld life insurance benefits in situations regarding DUI deaths, domestic partnerships, failure to disclose, and improper enrollment. He works with elderly clients to help them obtain long-term care benefits that they are entitled to under their long-term care insurance policies.In 2011, Glenn worked with California Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones to help pass California Insurance Code Section 10110.6, a law that prevents disability insurance companies from inserting language into policies that gives them the discretion to deny claims.Glenn earned his J.D. from the University of Southern California Law Center. Links:Glenn KantorHow the American Rescue Plan will Improve Affordability of Private Health CoverageMarriage in the Disabled Community: More Complicated Than You May ThinkMarriage, Ableism, and Social Security DisabilityThe Marriage Penalty: Choosing Love or MoneyPatients Rising Concierge Need help?The successful patient is one who can get what they need when they need it. We all know insurance slows us down, so why not take matters into your own hands. Our Navigator is an online tool that allows you to search a massive network of health-related resources using your zip code so you get local results. Get proactive and become a more successful patient right now at PatientsRisingConcierge.orgHave a question or comment about the show, want to suggest a show topic or share your story as a patient correspondent?Drop us a line: podcast@patientsrising.orgThe views and opinions expressed herein are those of the guest(s)/ author(s) and do not reflect the official policy or position of Patients Rising.
ERISA stands for the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and governs most of our employee benefits. While this area of law may not seem as engrossing as other areas of law such as criminal law, the impact labor laws have on our lives are just as compelling and the stakes are just as high. This law blankets areas such as mental health, eating disorders, our retirement accounts, life insurance, and more. Erisa watch will tell stories of individuals whose lives have been dramatically affected and show why Erisa matters.
Josh and Jay welcome Will Steih back to the studio to dive deep into the different types of retirement plans available to Gulf Coast area business owners. If you’re a business owner that is looking to sock money away, what are your options? Should you consider a SEP IRA? Or a 401k? What is profit sharing? What is safe harbor? What is the best retirement plan for a business owner? IT DEPENDS! Join us to hear a straight forward conversation about your qualified plan options, plus some tips for those of you looking to save more above and beyond your basic 401k! Key Takeaways: Most business owners offer a retirement plan so they can put their own money away for their own retirement, retain key employees and offer competitive benefits when competing for talent. A well designed retirement plan can be a significant piece of attracting and retaining talented employees. A SEP IRA allows a closely held business owner the ability to make tax-deferred contributions up to $57,000 (2020 limit) or 25% of compensation. A 401(k) can reach similar tax deferred contribution limits, but contributions will be made in “pieces”, i.e. the 401k contribution, the company match and profit sharing would be the 3 components needed to achieve that high of a contribution amount. A 401k is regulated by the Department of Labor (DOL) and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and requires that all employees are treated equally. A Non-Qualified Deferred Compensation plan allows you to reward specific employees, that is, you can pick which key employees are eligible for the additional compensation. Highly compensated business owners or professionals often run into a qualified retirement plan contribution percentage dilemma: the annual limits of their qualified plan would probably result in less money being put away for retirement than what could replace their lifestyle income needs. For example, a professional making $500,000 in annual income only saves a little over 11% of their income even if they max out a profit sharing 401k plan. There are plan options available for folks in this situation. One option is referred to as a “Section 162” bonus that is often used for key employees and is sometimes funded by cash value life insurance for tax purposes. Another option is setting up a Defined Benefit Plan. Small business owners can take a look at a type of a Defined Benefit Plan called a Cash Balance Plan. You can learn more about Defined Benefit & Cash Balance Plans by listening to Episode 9 of our Every Dollar Counts podcast. For sole proprietors just starting out and not having the ability to put significant dollars away for retirement planning, there are two other options: a Traditional IRA and a Roth IRA. Both have $6000 contribution limit (2020) with a $1000 catch up after age 50. A Traditional IRA has pre-tax contributions with tax deferred growth; a Roth IRA has post-tax contributions with tax free growth. Note that there are income limits with a Roth. Action Items: Modern technology has made most retirement plan options available in a “Do-it-yourself” manner, but as with most things, the more complex the plan and the business owner’s situation, the more value professional guidance brings to the table. You can reach out to Gulf Coast Financial Advisors to set up a no-cost, no-obligation discussion about your particular needs by call 251-327-2124 or emailing jnull@gulfcoastfa.com Show Links: https://gulfcoastfa.com/ https://pciawealth.com/ a href="https://qualifiedplanadvisors.com/">https://qualifiedplanadvisors.com/ https://fitrusts.com/ https://everydollarcounts.libsyn.com/ http://jaystubbs.com/ https://www.firstprotective.com/ https://www.deepfriedstudios.com/ https://www.slothracerband.com/ Resources: Gulf Coast Financial Advisors Prime Capital Investment Advisors Qualified Plan Advisors Financial Fitness for Life First Protective
On December 10, 2020 the Supreme Court decided Rutledge v. Pharmaceutical Care Management Association. The question presented was whether the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) pre-empts the State of Arkansas’ Act 900, which regulates the price at which pharmacy benefit managers reimburse pharmacies for the cost of drugs covered by prescription-drug plans. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that ERISA preemption applied. By a vote of 8-0, the Supreme Court reversed that judgment and remanded the case. Writing for the Court, Justice Sotomayor indicated that Act 900 “has neither an impermissible connection with nor reference to ERISA and is therefore not pre-empted.”Justice Sotomayor’s opinion was joined by all other members of the Court except Justice Barrett, who took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion.Max Schulman, an Associate at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, joins us today to discuss this ruling.
On December 10, 2020, the Supreme Court released its decision in Rutledge v. Pharmaceutical Care Management Association. By a vote of 8-0, the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit was reversed and the case remanded. Per Justice Sotomayor's opinion for the Court: "Arkansas’ Act 900 regulates the price at which pharmacy benefit managers reimburse pharmacies for the cost of drugs covered by prescription-drug plans. The question presented in this case is whether the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 88 Stat. 829, as amended, 29 U. S. C. §1001 et seq., pre-empts Act 900. The Court holds that the Act has neither an impermissible connection with nor reference to ERISA and is therefore not pre-empted." Justice Sotomayor's opinion was joined by all other members of the Court except Justice Barrett, who took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion.Featuring: -- Anthony G. Provenzano, Member, Miller & Chevalier
To support this ministry financially, visit: https://www.oneplace.com/donate/1085/29 They say when it rains, it pours. Thats fine if the lawn needs watering, but not so much if someone sues you. Could you use an umbrella insurance policy?Many homeowners fail to take advantage of coverage that protects their assets from catastrophic lawsuits. Today, financial planner and teacher Rob West has the info you need on this overlooked form of insurance. Then its your calls at 800-525-7000. An umbrella policy gives you extra liability coverage for you and your family, beyond what you have with your homeowners and auto insurance policies. And does everyone need it? Maybe not. But more people than you might expect. If youve been working hard to build up assets, in your retirement fund, and the equity in your home, its possible you could reach the million dollar mark someday, even if youre not there yet. And a civil judgement could be against future earnings, so thats something to consider. A lot of folks might think those assets are protected from lawsuits, but there are limitations. In many states, your home is protected from lawsuits and creditors, but not all. For example, New Jersey and Pennsylvania have no homestead protection. Also, most employer sponsored retirement plans, like a 401k, have immunity from lawsuits and creditors under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, or ERISA. But non-ERISA plans, like traditional or Roth IRAs, dont have the same level of protection. So those are both reasons to consider an umbrella policy. Umbrella policies are quite reasonable. For up to $1 million in coverage, youll probably pay $150 to $300 a year. You might even find it cheaper if you have an independent insurance agent shop around for you. Theres no deductible with an umbrella insurance policy. Of course, you would pay the deductible for your homeowners or auto insurance policy, but then the umbrella policy kicks in and pays all the rest. Here are some questions we answered from our callers on todays program: My husband and I have savings in an account that we were planning on using on a home. We are now considering going into the mission field within the next 5 years. Should we wait to purchase a home? I opened a Roth IRA. How do taxes work with these? I am making some improvements on my home. One creditor offers a loan with no payments for 5 years. How can they do this? It is too good to be true? If you can save a percent, should you refinance? I only have 8 years left to pay it off. I am a schoolteacher and I am planning my retirement. Is having a 403B the best plan for me for retirement? My husband and I purchased a timeshare 30 years ago. Is there a cost effective way to get out of this? Ask your questions at (800) 525-7000 or email them atquestions@moneywise.org. Visit our website atmoneywise.orgwhere you can connect with a MoneyWise Coach, purchase books, and even download free, helpful resources. Like and Follow us on Facebook atMoneyWise Mediafor videos and the very latest discussion!Remember that its your prayerful and financial support that keeps MoneyWise on the air. Help us continue this outreach by clicking the Donate tab at the top of the page.
To support this ministry financially, visit: https://www.oneplace.com/donate/1085/29 They say when it rains, it pours. Thats fine if the lawn needs watering, but not so much if someone sues you. Could you use an umbrella insurance policy?Many homeowners fail to take advantage of coverage that protects their assets from catastrophic lawsuits. Today, financial planner and teacher Rob West has the info you need on this overlooked form of insurance. Then its your calls at 800-525-7000. An umbrella policy gives you extra liability coverage for you and your family, beyond what you have with your homeowners and auto insurance policies. And does everyone need it? Maybe not. But more people than you might expect. If youve been working hard to build up assets, in your retirement fund, and the equity in your home, its possible you could reach the million dollar mark someday, even if youre not there yet. And a civil judgement could be against future earnings, so thats something to consider. A lot of folks might think those assets are protected from lawsuits, but there are limitations. In many states, your home is protected from lawsuits and creditors, but not all. For example, New Jersey and Pennsylvania have no homestead protection. Also, most employer sponsored retirement plans, like a 401k, have immunity from lawsuits and creditors under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, or ERISA. But non-ERISA plans, like traditional or Roth IRAs, dont have the same level of protection. So those are both reasons to consider an umbrella policy. Umbrella policies are quite reasonable. For up to $1 million in coverage, youll probably pay $150 to $300 a year. You might even find it cheaper if you have an independent insurance agent shop around for you. Theres no deductible with an umbrella insurance policy. Of course, you would pay the deductible for your homeowners or auto insurance policy, but then the umbrella policy kicks in and pays all the rest. Here are some questions we answered from our callers on todays program: My husband and I have savings in an account that we were planning on using on a home. We are now considering going into the mission field within the next 5 years. Should we wait to purchase a home? I opened a Roth IRA. How do taxes work with these? I am making some improvements on my home. One creditor offers a loan with no payments for 5 years. How can they do this? It is too good to be true? If you can save a percent, should you refinance? I only have 8 years left to pay it off. I am a schoolteacher and I am planning my retirement. Is having a 403B the best plan for me for retirement? My husband and I purchased a timeshare 30 years ago. Is there a cost effective way to get out of this? Ask your questions at (800) 525-7000 or email them atquestions@moneywise.org. Visit our website atmoneywise.orgwhere you can connect with a MoneyWise Coach, purchase books, and even download free, helpful resources. Like and Follow us on Facebook atMoneyWise Mediafor videos and the very latest discussion!Remember that its your prayerful and financial support that keeps MoneyWise on the air. Help us continue this outreach by clicking the Donate tab at the top of the page.
On October 6, 2020, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments for Rutledge v. Pharmaceutical Care Management Association. The issue in this case is whether states have the right to regulate pharmacy benefit managers, or PBM’s. Leslie Rutledge, Arkansas’s Attorney General, has petitioned the court to overturn the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth District’s prior decision to maintain Arkansas’ statute regulating PBMs’ drug reimbursement rates. Rutledge argues the statute is preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. Max Schulman joins us to discuss this case’s oral arguments. Schulman is an associate in the Washington, D.C. office of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher.
On October 6, 2020, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments for Rutledge v. Pharmaceutical Care Management Association. The issue in this case is whether states have the right to regulate pharmacy benefit managers, or PBM’s. Leslie Rutledge, Arkansas’s Attorney General, has petitioned the court to overturn the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth District’s prior decision to maintain Arkansas’ statute regulating PBMs’ drug reimbursement rates. Rutledge argues the statute is preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. Max Schulman joins us to discuss this case’s oral arguments. Schulman is an associate in the Washington, D.C. office of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher.
QUESTION PRESENTED: Thirty-six States have enacted legislation to curb abusive prescription drug reimbursement practices by claims-processing middlemen-known as pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs)-who make money on the spread between the rates at which they reimburse pharmacies and the drug prices they charge health plans. In response, Respondent Pharmaceutical Care Management Association (PCMA), a PBM trade association, has launched a barrage of litigation across the country arguing that state regulations of PBMs generally, and state drug-reimbursement regulations specifically, are categorically preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). Disregarding this Court's ERISA precedent (and contrary to the First Circuit's conclusion that PBMregulations are categoricallynot preempted by ERISA), the Eighth Circuit embraced that argument. THE QUESTION PRESENTED HERE IS: 1. Whether the Eighth Circuit erred in holding that Arkansas's statute regulating PBMs' drug-reimbursement rates, which is similar to laws enacted by a substantial majority of States, is preempted by ERISA, in contravention of this Court's precedent that ERISA does not preempt rate regulation.
A case in which the Court will decide whether an Arkansas law regulating pharmacy benefit managers’ drug-reimbursement rates is pre-empted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).
A case in which the Court will decide whether an Arkansas law regulating pharmacy benefit managers’ drug-reimbursement rates is pre-empted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).
Georgia House of Representatives Earl L. “Buddy” Carter joins CEO of RxSafe Bill Holmes to summarize the The Supreme Court of The United States (SCOTUS) has rescheduled the Rutledge v. The Pharmaceutical Care Management Association (PCMA) hearing for October 6, 2020.1 The initial April hearing date had been postponed due to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic (COVID-19) Rutledge v. PCMA revolves around whether states have the right to regulate pharmacy benefit managers (PBMS). Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge has petitioned the court to overturn the US Court of Appeals for the Eight District's earlier decision to maintain Arkansas' statute regulating PBMs' drug reimbursement rates. In a legal brief filed in February 2020, however, Rutledge argues the statute is preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.3 At least 4 pharmacy groups, The American Pharmacists Association, The Arkansas Pharmacist Association, The National Alliance of State Pharmacy Associations, and the National Community Pharmacists Association have publicly expressed their support for states' rights to regulate PBMs.3 According to an earlier report, these 4 groups have jointly argued that unregulated PBM business practices limits access to pharmacists care and prevents the optimal use of medications.3 In April 2020, the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy (AMCP) filed an amicus brief in support of the Eighth District's decision.4 The brief argues that ruling in favor of Rutledge will drive up health care costs, and also will have a big effect on patients too by limiting their ability to access affordable medications, hindering health outcomes.4 The AMCP brief also argues that ruling in favor of Rutledge can lead to issues at the administrative level, and can lead to varying and possibly contradictory state laws as well.4 Supreme Court to hear Rutledge v. PCMA Oct. 6 The US Supreme Court has released its October 2020 oral argument calendar, with Rutledge v. PCMA now scheduled to be heard on Tuesday, Oct. 6. The case was originally scheduled to be argued in April but was postponed due to the coronavirus pandemic. Rutledge v. PCMA is a landmark case on whether states can adopt meaningful regulations on pharmacy benefit managers. If you would like to contribute to the NCPA Legislative/Legal Defense Fund, your support would be much appreciated. Resources Brief of Arkansas Pharmacists Association, National Community Pharmacists Association, American Pharmacists Association, National Alliance Of State Pharmacy Associations, and Fifty-One Other Pharmacist Associations As Amici Curiae Supporting Petitioner Latest Information on Rutledge v. PCMA NCPA Analysis of Rutledge v. PCMA Rutledge v. PCMA: 15 Years in the Making See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Georgia House of Representatives Earl L. “Buddy” Carter joins CEO of RxSafe Bill Holmes to summarize the The Supreme Court of The United States (SCOTUS) has rescheduled the Rutledge v. The Pharmaceutical Care Management Association (PCMA) hearing for October 6, 2020.1 The initial April hearing date had been postponed due to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic (COVID-19) Rutledge v. PCMA revolves around whether states have the right to regulate pharmacy benefit managers (PBMS). Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge has petitioned the court to overturn the US Court of Appeals for the Eight District's earlier decision to maintain Arkansas' statute regulating PBMs' drug reimbursement rates. In a legal brief filed in February 2020, however, Rutledge argues the statute is preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.3 At least 4 pharmacy groups, The American Pharmacists Association, The Arkansas Pharmacist Association, The National Alliance of State Pharmacy Associations, and the National Community Pharmacists Association have publicly expressed their support for states' rights to regulate PBMs.3 According to an earlier report, these 4 groups have jointly argued that unregulated PBM business practices limits access to pharmacists care and prevents the optimal use of medications.3 In April 2020, the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy (AMCP) filed an amicus brief in support of the Eighth District's decision.4 The brief argues that ruling in favor of Rutledge will drive up health care costs, and also will have a big effect on patients too by limiting their ability to access affordable medications, hindering health outcomes.4 The AMCP brief also argues that ruling in favor of Rutledge can lead to issues at the administrative level, and can lead to varying and possibly contradictory state laws as well.4 Supreme Court to hear Rutledge v. PCMA Oct. 6 The US Supreme Court has released its October 2020 oral argument calendar, with Rutledge v. PCMA now scheduled to be heard on Tuesday, Oct. 6. The case was originally scheduled to be argued in April but was postponed due to the coronavirus pandemic. Rutledge v. PCMA is a landmark case on whether states can adopt meaningful regulations on pharmacy benefit managers. If you would like to contribute to the NCPA Legislative/Legal Defense Fund, your support would be much appreciated. Resources Brief of Arkansas Pharmacists Association, National Community Pharmacists Association, American Pharmacists Association, National Alliance Of State Pharmacy Associations, and Fifty-One Other Pharmacist Associations As Amici Curiae Supporting Petitioner Latest Information on Rutledge v. PCMA NCPA Analysis of Rutledge v. PCMA Rutledge v. PCMA: 15 Years in the Making See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Georgia House of Representatives Earl L. “Buddy” Carter joins CEO of RxSafe Bill Holmes to summarize the The Supreme Court of The United States (SCOTUS) has rescheduled the Rutledge v. The Pharmaceutical Care Management Association (PCMA) hearing for October 6, 2020.1 The initial April hearing date had been postponed due to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic (COVID-19) Rutledge v. PCMA revolves around whether states have the right to regulate pharmacy benefit managers (PBMS). Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge has petitioned the court to overturn the US Court of Appeals for the Eight District’s earlier decision to maintain Arkansas’ statute regulating PBMs’ drug reimbursement rates. In a legal brief filed in February 2020, however, Rutledge argues the statute is preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.3 At least 4 pharmacy groups, The American Pharmacists Association, The Arkansas Pharmacist Association, The National Alliance of State Pharmacy Associations, and the National Community Pharmacists Association have publicly expressed their support for states’ rights to regulate PBMs.3 According to an earlier report, these 4 groups have jointly argued that unregulated PBM business practices limits access to pharmacists care and prevents the optimal use of medications.3 In April 2020, the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy (AMCP) filed an amicus brief in support of the Eighth District’s decision.4 The brief argues that ruling in favor of Rutledge will drive up health care costs, and also will have a big effect on patients too by limiting their ability to access affordable medications, hindering health outcomes.4 The AMCP brief also argues that ruling in favor of Rutledge can lead to issues at the administrative level, and can lead to varying and possibly contradictory state laws as well.4 Supreme Court to hear Rutledge v. PCMA Oct. 6 The US Supreme Court has released its October 2020 oral argument calendar, with Rutledge v. PCMA now scheduled to be heard on Tuesday, Oct. 6. The case was originally scheduled to be argued in April but was postponed due to the coronavirus pandemic. Rutledge v. PCMA is a landmark case on whether states can adopt meaningful regulations on pharmacy benefit managers. If you would like to contribute to the NCPA Legislative/Legal Defense Fund, your support would be much appreciated. Resources Brief of Arkansas Pharmacists Association, National Community Pharmacists Association, American Pharmacists Association, National Alliance Of State Pharmacy Associations, and Fifty-One Other Pharmacist Associations As Amici Curiae Supporting Petitioner Latest Information on Rutledge v. PCMA NCPA Analysis of Rutledge v. PCMA Rutledge v. PCMA: 15 Years in the Making See omnystudio.com/policies/listener for privacy information.
The U.S. Department of Labor received thousands of comments on a newly proposed rule that says sustainable investments still need to put financial performance first to have a place in corporate retirement plans. Some say the proposal would put needed guardrails in place around an increasingly popular investment product, but others argue that the rule will hamper ESG options in pension funds. We talk to sustainability experts on both sides of the debate in the latest episode ESG Insider, an S&P Global podcast about environmental, social and governance issues. The Labor Department in June proposed requiring company-sponsored retirement accounts such as 401(k)s and pension plans that are subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, or ERISA, to give a higher priority to funds with the greatest financial performance potential than to those focused on non-financial environmental and social considerations. The vast majority of comments the DOL received in July were in opposition to the proposal, according to an analysis by a number of organizations including the US SIF: The Forum for Sustainable and Responsible Investment. Christian McCormick, director and senior product and sustainability specialist at asset manager Allianz Global Investors U.S. LLC, notes that sustainable funds have grown exponentially. Morningstar Inc. reported that the money invested in sustainable funds increased nearly fourfold in 2019 from the prior calendar year to a total of $21.4 billion. In comparison, the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, or WBCSD, has indicated that in 2019 only 4.8% of Fortune 1000 companies offered a socially-responsible fund option for employee retirement plans. Given the rising popularity of ESG funds, McCormick suggests that the Labor Department may be trying to act early before the trend spreads and takes hold in retirement plans. If the agency were to wait until more companies offered ESG fund options, it would face much more push-back "because it would require a lot of cost to then change investment lineups [and] require a lot of regulatory and perhaps even litigation costs for plans that have already added it," McCormick says in the interview. But William Sisson, executive director of the CEO-led WBCSD, contends that the new rule would make companies even less likely to offer ESG fund options. "This ruling is going to perhaps put some brakes on that because it's going to raise ... some flags to the fiduciaries in our companies about concerns over the litigation risk and other factors that they'll have to pay attention to if this ruling goes forward," he tells ESG Insider.
An employee stock ownership plan (an “ESOP”) is a type of employee benefit plan regulated by the Internal Revenue Code (the “Code”) and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”). Employees who are ESOP participants are in many ways treated similarly to shareholders of their company. This applies to bankruptcy as well, which means that ESOP participants are effectively “last in line” and usually get nothing if the company is liquidated. However, recent case law suggests that this treatment may not apply to repurchase obligations toward former employees. Repurchase obligations may be treated as debt, which may give an ESOP participant higher priority in bankruptcy putting them next in line after the senior secured lender. In this podcast, Lavelle Law attorney Roman Perchyts answers questions about ESOPs and bankruptcy and addresses concerns that banks may have regarding the priority of repurchasing obligations in bankruptcy.
In this episode we discuss the newly signed Cares Act aimed at providing aid to businesses and individuals that have been impacted by the Coronavirus and the resulting economic shut-down. The application process for the Cares Act loans will take the form of a modified 7a SBA loan and will be processed through SBA approved lenders. On this episode, we have bank representatives, employment attorney, FSU Economics professor and business leaders in the restaurant industry. A recent post re: the summary of the Cares Act:Senate Passes the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (“CARES Act”)26 March 2020 Coronavirus Resource Center BlogAuthors: Frank S. Murray Jr Jared B. Rifis Leah R. Imbrogno Jamie N. Class Matthew E. Sierawski Julia Di Vito Kaitlyn M. Foley As the coronavirus outbreak continues to wreak havoc on markets and industries in the United States and around the world, businesses are now confronting significant and unique challenges. Successful navigation of these challenges will require thoughtful and comprehensive planning. Foley has created a multi-disciplinary and multi-jurisdictional team, which has prepared a wealth of topical client resources (see Foley’s Coronavirus Resource Center) and is prepared to help our clients meet the legal and business challenges that the coronavirus outbreak is creating for stakeholders across a range of industries, including manufacturing, technology, solar, hospitality and travel, healthcare, food, fashion and apparel, and sports and entertainment. The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (“CARES Act”) – Summary of Bill Language and Key TakeawaysOn March 25, 2020, the Senate unanimously passed (96-0) the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (“CARES Act”), commonly known as “Phase Three” of coronavirus economic relief. The CARES Act provides much needed stimulus to individuals, businesses, and hospitals in response to the economic distress caused by the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. The bill passed on March 25 is not yet law. Until the CARES Act is passed by the House of Representatives and signed into law by the President, it is subject to revisions. The bill will now go to the House, which is currently not in session. The House may reconvene to address the bill or pass the bill by unanimous consent agreement. The House is expected to pass the bill without changes on March 27, and it will then be presented to the President for his signature.Additional information, updates, and analysis regarding the CARES Act will be posted on Foley’s Coronavirus Resource Center. Please check back frequently for updates. Foley is available to assist in interpretation of the CARES Act for your business and can help you find ways to claim and/or use available funding for your company. The CARES ActTop 10 Takeaways:Provides stimulus to individuals, businesses, and hospitals in response to the economic distress caused by the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.Creates a $349 billion loan program for small businesses, including 501(c)(3) non-profits and physician practices. These loans can be forgiven through a process that incentivizes companies to retain employees.Allocates $500 billion for assistance to businesses, states, and municipalities, with no more than $25 billion designated for passenger air carriers, $4 billion for air cargo carriers, and $17 billion for businesses critical to maintaining national security. The remaining $454 billion may be used to support lending to eligible businesses, states, and municipalities.Allocates $130 billion in relief to the medical and hospital industries, including for medical supplies and drug and device shortages.Expands telehealth services in Medicare, including services unrelated to COVID-19 treatments.Provides $1,200 to Americans making $75,000 or less ($150,000 in the case of joint returns and $112,500 for head of household) and $500 for each child, to be paid “as rapidly as possible.”Expands eligibility for unemployment insurance and provides people with an additional $600 per week on top of the unemployment amount determined by each state.Expands the Defense Production Act, allowing for a period of two years when the government may correct any shortfall in resources without regard to the current expenditure limit of $50 million.Provides the Secretary of the Treasury with the authority to make loans or loan guarantees to states, municipalities, and eligible businesses and loosens a variety of regulations prior legislation imposed through the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, and others.Accompanied by supplemental appropriations to help the government respond to this pandemic.Summary of the CARES Act:Division A - Keeping American Workers Paid and Employed, Healthcare System Enhancements, and Economic Stabilization Title I – Keeping American Workers Paid and Employed Act Foley Title I Contacts: Jamie Class, Erin Toomey, Jessica Glatzer Mason, and Frank MurrayPaycheck Protection ProgramThe Paycheck Protection Loan Program, at a price tag of $349 billion, covers the period February 15, 2020 through June 30, 2020 and greatly expands SBA loan eligibility. The loan program will allow businesses suffering due to the coronavirus outbreak to borrow money for a variety of qualified costs related to employee compensation and benefits, including (i) payroll costs, (ii) continuation of health care benefits, (iii) employee compensation (of those making less than $100K), (iv) mortgage interest obligations, (v) rent, (vi) utilities and (vii) interest on debt incurred before the covered period.The legislation greatly expands the number of businesses (including non-profits) that are eligible for SBA loans and raises the maximum amount for such a loan by 2.5 x the average total monthly payroll costs, or up to $10 million. The interest rate may not to exceed 4%.Companies that employ no more than 500 employees are (or a greater number based on the size standard applicable to the industry) may be eligible. Certain companies in the Accommodation and Food Services Industry (NAICS Code 72) may be eligible if they have no more than 500 employees per physical location. In most cases, the number of employees is counted together with all affiliates.Waives affiliation rules under 13 C.F.R. 121.103 for any business with less than 500 employees in the Accommodation and Food Services Industry, certain franchise businesses and small businesses that receive financing through the Small Business Investment Company Act. Affiliation rules otherwise apply to determine eligibility.Waives the credit available elsewhere, personal guaranty and collateral requirements.For eligibility purposes, requires lenders to determine whether a business was operational on February 15, 2020, and had employees for whom it paid salaries and payroll taxes, or a paid independent contractor. (This is likely to be interpreted to replace the determination of repayment ability which is not possible during the crisis.)All or a portion of the loan may be forgivable and debt service payments may be deferred for up to 1 year.Entrepreneurial DevelopmentProvides funding to educate small businesses and their employees regarding (i) Federal resources available during this time, (ii) Hazards of COVID-19 and (iii) best practices around teleworking to prevent the spread of COVID-19.iii. State Trade Expansion ProgramAllows for federal grant funds appropriated to support the State Trade Expansion Program (STEP) in FY 2018 and FY 2019 to remain available for use through FY 2021.Waiver of Matching Funds Requirement under the Women’s Business Center ProgramEliminates the non-federal match requirement for Women’s Business Centers for a period of three months. Loan Forgiveness Establishes that the borrower under the Paycheck Protection Program shall be eligible for loan forgiveness equal to the amount spent by the borrower during an 8-week period after the origination date on (i) rent, (ii) payroll costs for workers making less than $100K, (iii) interest on a mortgage, and (iv) utility payments. The amount forgiven may not exceed the principal of the loan. Incentivizes companies to retain employees by reducing the amount forgiven proportionally by any reduction in employees retained compared to the prior year.To encourage employers to rehire any employees who have already been laid off due to the COVID-19 crisis, borrowers that re-hire workers previously laid off will not be penalized for having a reduced payroll at the beginning of the period.Minority Business Development Agency Empowers the Department of Commerce, through the Minority Business Development Agency, to provide grants to minority business centers and minority chambers of commerce to provide education, training and advising related to accessing federal resources.vii. United States Treasury Program Management Authority The Department of the Treasury, consulting with the Small Business Administration and the Chairman of the Farm Credit Administration shall establish criteria to allow other lenders to participate in the Paycheck Protection Program, so long as such participation does not threaten the safety and soundness of the lender, as determined in consultation with the relevant federal banking agencies.viii. Emergency Economic Injury Disaster Loans (“EIDLs”) For the period between January 31, 2020 and December 31, 2020 (the “covered period”) EIDL eligibility is greatly expanded to include any business with not more than 500 employees operating under a sole proprietorship or as an independent contractor, and any cooperative, ESOP and tribal small business concern with not more than 500 employees. The number of employees is determined together with affiliates.Furthermore, EIDLs may be approved solely on the bases of an applicant’s credit score or by use of alternative methods to gauge the applicant’s ability to repay. Additionally, applicants may request an advance of up to $10,000 within three days after the Administrator receives the application, subject to verification that the entity is eligible under this program. The advance may be used for any allowable purposes under §7(b)(2) of the Small Business Act and is not subject to repayment, even if the loan request is ultimately denied.Importantly, the CARES Act waives: (1) the requirement of personal guarantees for loans up to $200,000, (2) the requirement that the applicant must be in business for a year (but must be in operation on January 31, 2020), and (3) the credit elsewhere test.Establishes that an emergency involving Federal primary responsibility determined to exist by the President under Section 501(b) of the Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act qualifies as a new trigger for EIDLs.Importantly, the CARES Act waives: (1) the requirement of personal guarantees for loans up to $200,000, (2) the requirement that the applicant must be in business for a year (but must be in operation on January 31, 2020), and (3) the credit elsewhere test.Subsidy for Certain Loan PaymentsFor loans under §7(a) of the Small Business Act, Title V of the Small Business Investment Act, and for loans made by an intermediary using §7(m) loans or grants, the Administrator shall pay the principal, interest, and fees owed for loans in regular servicing status for any such loans, whether on deferment or not, that were made before the enactment of the Act for the following 6-month period, and for any such loans that were made between the date of enactment of the Act and six months from such date. This does not apply to Payroll Protection loans or EIDL loans which have separate subsidy and repayment requirements.The payments shall be made not later than 30 days from when the first payment is due and shall be applied such that the borrower is relieved of any obligation to pay that amount. The Administrator shall coordinate with relevant banking agencies to request that lenders not be required to increase reserves because of these payments.The Administrator will waive limits on the maximum loan maturities for loans given deferral and extended maturity during the year following enactment. The Administrator will extend lender site visit requirement timelines as necessary because of COVID-19, to within 60 days of a non-default adverse event, and 90 days of a default. $17 billion is appropriated for the foregoing.BankruptcySection 1182(1) of Title 11 is amended to define “debtor” as persons engaged in commercial or business activities and their affiliates (excluding persons who primarily own single asset real estate) that have aggregate, noncontingent, liquidated secured and unsecured debts (at the date of petition filing or the order for relief) of $7,500,000 or less (excluding debts owed to affiliates or insiders), half or more of which arose from those activities. Exempt from this new definition are any members of a group of affiliated debtors that has aggregate, noncontingent, liquidated secured and unsecured debts over $7,500,000 (excluding debt owed to affiliates or insiders); corporations subject to 1934 Act reporting requirements; and affiliates of an issuer under the 1934 Act. National Emergency Act payments for COVID-19 by the President are exempted from “current monthly income” and “disposable income” when determining the power of courts to approve debtor plans rejected by trustees or claim holders. Debtors that have experienced material financial hardship due to COVID-19 can modify a plan confirmed prior to this Act’s enactment date if approved after notice and hearing, but only if that plan doesn’t provide payments more than seven years after the first payment was due under the original plan, and follows requirements of 1322(a)-(c) and 1325(a). This modification terminates one year after the enactment of this Act.Title II – Assistance for American Workers, Families, and Businesses Foley Title II Contacts: Julie Lutfi, Ashley May, and Dick RileySubtitle A: Unemployment Insurance ProvisionsEligibilityThe law expands the scope of individuals who are eligible for unemployment benefits, including those who are furloughed or out of work as a direct result of COVID-19, self-employed or gig workers, and those who have exhausted existing state and federal unemployment benefit provisions.The only individuals expressly excluded from coverage are those who have the ability to telework with pay and those who are receiving paid sick leave or other paid benefits (even if they otherwise satisfy the criteria for unemployment under the new law).Administration of BenefitThe benefits are administered by each state and upon the state’s written agreement with the Secretary of Labor to provide the specific benefits. States that enter into such an agreement with the Secretary of Labor will be reimbursed in whole or in part for the cost of the benefits plus administrative expensesTypes of Benefits ProvideThe law provides an increase of $600 per week in the amounts customarily available for unemployment under state law. This increase applies for unemployment payments made from the date of the law’s enactment through July 31, 2020 (approximately four months).States can agree to provide pandemic emergency unemployment compensation to individuals who have either exhausted all of the benefits available to them under existing state and federal law or who are not otherwise eligible for benefits under existing state and federal law. Individuals must be able and available to work and actively seeking work, unless they are unable to do so as a result of COVID-19 illness, quarantine, or movement restriction.States can agree to waive the waiting period for receipt of benefits so that individuals do not experience gaps in income.The federal government will temporarily fund short-time compensation under existing state plans. States that do not yet have short-time compensation plans in place may agree to implement a plan, provided that employers who enter into short-time compensation plans must be required to pay to the state half of the short-time compensation paid under the planTime Periods for Expanded BenefitsThe law provides unemployment benefit assistance to covered individuals who are not otherwise entitled to benefits under existing state or federal law for weeks of unemployment, partial unemployment, or inability to work caused by COVID-19 during the period January 27, 2020 through December 31, 2020. This includes any waiting periods for benefits under applicable state law.The total benefit may not extend beyond 39 weeks (including any unemployment benefits or extended benefits received under existing state or federal law), unless, after the law is enacted, the duration of extended benefits is extended, in which case the total benefit may extend beyond 39 weeks by that same additional period of extended benefits.The $600 weekly benefit increase will be applicable to weekly payments made through the end of July 2020.Protections Against Fraud and OverpaymentAny fraudulent intent or misrepresentations to obtain payments to which an individual is not entitled will result in ineligibility for any other unemployment compensation benefits under the new law as well as criminal prosecution. Overpayments may be clawed back by the state agencies.Social Security TreatmentThe additional unemployment compensation provided is not considered “income” for purposes of Medicaid and CHIP.Subtitle B: Rebates and Other Individual ProvisionsTax CreditsBeginning in 2020, "eligible individual" taxpayers can benefit from a tax credit equal to the sum of: (i) $1,200 for single filers ($2,400 for those filing a joint return) plus (ii) an amount equal to th eproduct of (a) $500 multiplied by (b) the number of qualifying children. However, the aforementioned tax credits will be “phased-out” by 5% (but not below 0) when such eligible taxpayer’s adjusted gross income exceeds: (i) $150,000 for joint-filers, (ii) $112,500 for heads of household, and (iii) $75,000 for all other types of filers.This means, for example, the tax credit will phase out entirely at $198,000 for joint-filers with no children.“Coronavirus-Related Distribution”A “coronavirus-related distribution,” as defined under the CARES Act, is generally defined as any distribution from an eligible retirement plan made: (i) on or after January 1, 2020 and before December 31, 2020, (ii) to an individual (a) who is diagnosed with COVID-19, (b) whose spouse or dependent is diagnosed with COVID-19, or (c) who experiences adverse financial consequences as a result of being quarantined, furloughed, laid off, had hours reduced, or other factors as determined by the Secretary of the Treasury during the COVID-19 pandemic.Tax Treatment of Coronavirus-Related DistributionsIndividuals who elect to receive a “coronavirus-related distribution” will not be subject to the traditional 10% tax penalty imposed under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”) for early withdrawals from eligible retirement accounts,unless the aggregate amount of such distributions from all plans maintained by the employer (and any member of any “controlled group” which includes the employer) to such individual exceeds $100,000. Coronavirus-related distributions made from both traditional eligible employer sponsored retirement plans and individual retirement accounts (“IRAs”) may be excluded from gross income.Repayments of Coronavirus-Related DistributionsAny individual who receives a coronavirus-related distribution may generally, at any time during the three (3) year period beginning on the day after the date such coronavirus-related distribution was received, make one (1) or more contributions in an aggregate amount not to exceed the amount of such distribution to an eligible retirement plan of which such individual is a beneficiary . The aforementioned repayments of coronavirus-related distributions for eligible retirement plans, will, to the extent of the amount of the contribution, be treated as having received the coronavirus-related distribution in an eligible rollover distribution,” and as having transferred the amount to the eligible retirement plan in a direct trustee to trustee transfer within sixty (60) days of distribution.Effects on the Limits on Loans from Qualified Employer PlansThe limitation on loans from any qualified employer plan made to qualified individuals will be increased from $50,000 to $100,000, and should the due date of any such loan occur between the date of enactment of the CARES Act and December 31, 2020, it will be delayed for one (1) year.Effects on Minimum Distribution ThresholdThe CARES Act temporarily waives the minimum distribution requirements for all “eligible deferred compensation plans.” This includes: (i) certain contribution plans (e.g. an employer purchased annuity contract), (ii) deferred compensation plans that are maintained by an eligible employer, or (iii) IRAs. This applies for all distributions made on or after January 1, 2020.However, if this section applies to any pension plan or contract amendments, such pension plan or contract amendments will not fail to be treated as being operated in accordance with the terms of the plan during such period, solely because the plan operates in accordance with the CARES Act, so long as the amendment or contract in question has been in effect from its effective date until December 31, 2020.Any plan or contract amendments to which Section 2203 of the CARES Act (the section on temporary waiver of required minimum distribution rules) applies will not fail to meet the requirements of either the Internal Revenue Code or the Employee Retirement Income Security Act as a result of making such an amendment. However, this provision only applies to those amendments which are in effect during the period beginning on the effective date of the amendment until December 31, 2020.Tax Treatment of Charitable DonationThe CARES Act allows taxpayers to take an above-the-line tax deduction for charitable contributions of up to $300 for the tax year beginning in 2020.Additionally, except for certain exclusions specified below, the percentage and excess carryover restrictions on charitable and other “qualified contributions” (e.g. a contribution to a corporation, trust, a state, or an organization of war veterans, etc.) are disregarded.Exceptions to the CARES Act General Disregard of the Percentage and Excess Carryover Restrictions on Qualified ContributionsThe CARES Act treats individuals and corporations differently regarding the aforementioned exceptions, and such different treatments are described below.Qualified contributions for individuals will be allowed as deductions to the extent that the combined contributions do not exceed (i) the excess of the taxpayer’s adjusted gross income over (ii) the amount of the charitable contributions made by the individual under certain other provisions of the CARES Act (e.g., donations to a church, educational organization, private foundation, etc.). If such contributions exceed the foregoing limitation, they will be added to the qualified contribution excess, which is eligible to be treated as charitable deductions for up to the next five (5) successive tax years. Any qualified contributions made by corporations will be allowed as deductions only if these contributions do not exceed 25% of the taxable income of the corporation over the amount of all other charitable contributions allowed under the CARES Act. To the extent a corporation exceeds this limit, it will carry over the excess which will be eligible to be applied as charitable contribution deductions for the subsequent five tax years. This is provided that the excess qualified contribution amounts in question meet certain other restrictions, specifically, they must not exceed the lesser of: (i) 10% of the corporation’s taxable income or the total charitable deductions taken by the corporation during the taxable year over the sum of the contributions made in such year plus the aggregate of the excess contributions which were made in taxable years before the contribution year and which are deductible under this subparagraph for such succeeding taxable year; or (ii) in the case of the first succeeding taxable year, the amount of such excess contribution, and in the case of the second, third, fourth, or fifth succeeding taxable year, the portion of such excess contribution not deductible under this subparagraph for any taxable year intervening between the contribution year and such succeeding taxable year.iii. Subtitle C: Business ProvisionsEmployee Retention Credit for Employer Subject to Closure Due to COVID-19Eligible employers will receive a credit against applicable employment taxes for each calendar quarter in an amount equal to 50% of the qualified wages with respect to each employee. The amount of qualified wages taken into account for each eligible employee, however, will not exceed $10,000 per calendar quarter and the credit will not exceed the applicable employment taxes owed for such calendar quarter. The aforementioned credit is not applicable if the employer is alto taking advantage of the small business interruption loan. An eligible employer is defined as any employer: (i) which was carrying on a trade or business during calendar year 2020, and (ii) with respect to any calendar quarter for which, (a) the operation of their trade or business was fully or partially suspended due to governmental order as a result of COVID-19, or (b) the calendar quarter is within the period beginning with (1) the calendar quarter after December 31, 2019 for which gross receipts for the calendar quarter are less than 50% of the gross receipts for the same calendar quarter of the prior year and the ending with (2) the calendar quarter following the first calendar quarter beginning after the calendar quarter described in (1) for which gross receipts of the employer are greater than 80% gross receipts for the same calendar quarter in the prior year.Delay of Payment of Employer Payroll TaxesThe CARES Act will allow for most employers to defer paying their share of applicable employment taxes from the time the CARES Act is signed into law through December 31, 2020. Half of this deferred amount would be due on December 31, 2021 and the other half by December 31, 2022.Modifications for Net Operating Losses (“NOL”)There will generally be a temporary repeal of taxable income limitation including (i) in the case of a taxable year beginning before January 1, 2021, the aggregate of the net operating loss (“NOL”) carryovers to such year, plus the NOL carrybacks to such year, and (ii) in the case of a taxable year beginning after December 31, 2020, the sum of (a) the aggregate amount of NOLs arising in taxable years beginning before January 1, 2018, carried to such taxable year, plus (b) the lesser of (1) the aggregate amount of NOLs beginning after December 31, 2017, carried to such taxable year, or (2) 80% of the excess of certain taxable income.In the case of any NOL arising in a taxable year beginning after December 31, 2017, and before January 1, 2021, whereby (i) such NOL will be a net operating loss carryback to each of the five (5) taxable years preceding the taxable year of such loss and (ii) certain rules applicable to farming losses and insurance companies shall not apply. There are additional rules that apply specifically to “real estate investment trusts” and life insurance companies.Modification of Limitation on Losses for Taxpayers Other Than CorporationsFor any taxpayer other than a corporation:For a taxable year beginning after December 31, 2017 and before January 1, 2026, subsection (j) (relating to a limitation on excess farm losses of certain taxpayers) would not apply; and ii. For any taxable year beginning after December 31, 2020 and before January 1, 2026, any excess business loss of the taxpayer for the taxable year will not be allowed.In regard to treatment of capital gains and losses for purposes of calculating “excess business losses”: Deductions for losses from sales or exchanges of capital assets will not be taken into account.The amount of gains from sales or exchanges of capital assets taken into account will not exceed the lesser of (1) the capital gain net income determined by taking into account only gains and losses attributable to a trade or business, or (2) the capital gain net income.The amendments made in the aforementioned section shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017.Modification of Credit for Prior Year Minimum Tax Liability of CorporationsThe corporate alternative minimum tax (AMT) was repealed as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, but corporate AMT credits were made available as refundable credits over several years, ending in 2021. The CARE Act accelerates the ability of companies to recover those AMT credits, permitting companies to claim a refund now and obtain additional cash flow during the COVID-19 emergency. Modification of Limitation on Business InterestThe CARES Act temporarily increases the amount of interest expense businesses are allowed to deduct on their tax returns, by increasing the 30-percent limitation (as imposed under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act) to 50 percent of taxable income (with adjustments) for 2019 and 2020. As businesses look to weather the storm of the current crisis, this provision will allow them to increase liquidity with a reduced cost of capital, so that they are able to continue operations and keep employees on payroll.Qualified Improvement PropertyThe CARES Act enables businesses, especially in the hospitality industry, to write off immediately costs associated with improving facilities instead of having to depreciate those improvements over the 39-year life of the building. The provision, which corrects an error in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, not only increases companies’ access to cash flow by allowing them to amend a prior year return, but also incentivizes them to continue to invest in improvements as the country recovers from the COVID-19 emergency. Temporary Exception from Excise Tax for Alcohol Used to Produce Hand SanitizerFor distilled spirits removed after December 31, 2019 and before January 1, 2021, such distilled spirits will be free of tax for use in or contained in hand sanitizer produced and distributed in a manner consistent with any guidance issued by the FDA related to the outbreak of COVID-19.Title III – Supporting America’s Health Care System in the Fight Against the Coronavirus Foley Title III Contacts: Rachel O’Neil, Erin Horton, Anil Shankar, and Paul JosephSubtitle A, Part I: Addressing Supply ShortagesProvides for the National Academies to examine and report on the security of the U.S. medical product supply chain in order to assess U.S. dependence on critical drugs and devices sourced outside of the U.S., and to develop recommendations to improve resiliency of the U.S. supply chain for critical drug and devices.Requires the Strategic National Stockpile to include certain types of medical supplies, including personal protective equipment (PPEs), and identifies respiratory protective devices as covered countermeasures for use during a public health emergency.Prioritizes the review of drug applications to mitigate emergency drug shortages.Creates additional reporting requirements for drug manufacturers to report a discontinuation and disruption of the sourcing of active pharmaceutical ingredients.Requires manufacturers of certain drugs and medical devices critical to public health during a public emergency to develop, maintain, and implement risk management plans related to shortages, creating an annual notification requirement of the same. Such manufacturers are also subject to shortage-related inspections by the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS).Subtitle A, Part II: Access to Health Care for COVID-19 Patients Permits group health plans and insurers to cover and reimburse providers of diagnostic testing relating to COVID-19 at pre-emergency-period negotiated rates, and sets reimbursement rates in instances without previously negotiated rates equal to the cash price for services listed on a publicly-available website or the plan or insurer can negotiate with a provider for a rate lower than such cash price. All providers of a diagnostic test for COVID-19 are required to publicize cash price for such tests. Failure to comply with these requirements could result in HHS assessing a civil monetary penalty of up to $300 per day.Requires health plans and issuers to provide for rapid coverage of “qualifying coronavirus preventative services” – an item, service, or immunization intended to prevent or mitigate coronavirus—and vaccines for coronavirus.Appropriates $1.3 billion for FY 2020 for supplemental awards to health care centers for the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of COVID-19.Amends Section 330I of the Public Health Service Act, relating to Telehealth Network and Telehealth Resource Centers Grant Programs, and Section 330A of the Public Health Service Act, relating to the Rural Health Care Services Outreach, Rural Health Network Development, and Small Healthcare Provider Quality Improvement Grant Programs—an individual or entity affected by these grant programs should seek out an attorney to examine the effect of such amendments.Limits potential state and federal liability for volunteer health care professionals—who provide services without compensation or other thing of value—for harm caused to patients relating to the diagnosis, prevention, or treatment of COVID-19. This provision expressly preempts more restrictive state or local law.Amends certain federal regulations governing the confidentiality and disclosure of substance use disorder patient records (Part 2), including allowing certain re-disclosures to covered entities, business associates, or other programs subject to HIPAA after obtaining the patient’s prior written consent.Permits a state agency or area agency on aging to transfer, without prior approval, not more than 100% of the funds received by the agency to meet the needs of the state or area served, and provides that the same meaning shall be given to an individual unable to obtain nutrition due to social distancing as one who is homebound due to illness.Provides that within 180 days of the passage of the Act, the Secretary of HHS shall issue guidance on the sharing of patients’ protected health information (PHI) related to COVID-19, including guidance on compliance with HIPAA regulations and applicable policies.Provides that the Secretary of HHS shall carry out a national awareness campaign relating to the importance and safety of blood donation, and the need of for donations for the blood supply during a public health emergency.iii. Subtitle A, Part III: Innovation Provides for using competitive procedures to enter into transactions to carry out public-health emergency health related projects and prohibits canceling those contracts solely because the emergency ends.Includes new provisions to expedite the development and approval of drugs to prevent or treat diseases in animals that are could have significant adverse consequences for humans.Subtitle A, Part IV: Health Care WorkforceApproves appropriations for a variety of health professions-related programs, with particular focus on programs serving medically underserved populations (rural and geriatric).Subtitle B: Education ProvisionsWaives requirement for certain higher education institutions to match federal funding and allows certain institutions to transfer unexpended allotment.Permits certain higher education institutions to use their allocations of Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants for emergency financial aid for students.Permits certain higher education loan borrowers flexibility in repaying loans or returning grants during a qualified emergency.Permits certain students to complete distance education and certain students of foreign institutions to take classes in the United States.Allows the Secretary of Education to issue waivers upon request relating to assessments, accountability, and related reporting requirements, and requirements for state and local educational agencies and Indian Tribes to receive funding.Allows the Secretary of Education to grant a deferment to an institution that received a loan under Part D of Title III of the Higher Education Act.Payments on student loans held by the Department of Education are suspended for 6 months, and the Secretary of Education shall suspend all involuntary collection activities during the period of payment suspension.The Corporation for National and Community Service can allow individuals to accrue service hours and may permit certain grants funds.Not more than 20% of the total amount allocated to a local area under 29 U.S.C. 3151 et seq. may be used for administrative costs.For the program year 2019, not more than 20% of the total amount allocated to a local area under 29 U.S.C. 3151 et seq., may be used for administrative costs of carrying out certain local workforce investment activities, if the portion of the total amount that exceeds 10% of the total amount is used to respond to qualifying emergency. For the program year 2019, certain unobligated funds reserved by a governor for statewide activities under the Workforce Innovation Opportunity Act may be used for statewide rapid response activities, or in certain circumstances, released to local boards impacted by the coronavirus.Gives the Secretary of Education authority to waive certain eligibility requirements, wait periods, and allotment requirements under the Higher Education Act for a period of time.Authorizes the Secretary of Education to modify the required and allowable uses of funds for grants and to modify any federal share or other financial matching requirement for a grant awarded under certain provisions of the Higher Education Act to an institution of higher education or other grant recipient (not including an individual recipient of Federal student financial assistance) as a result of a qualifying emergency.Allows the Secretary of Education to modify the categories of extenuating circumstances under which a grant recipient may be excused from fulfilling a portion of a service obligation under title IV of the Higher Education Act and must consider teaching service that is part-time or temporarily interrupted due to the emergency to be full-time service. Requires the Secretary of Education to waive certain years of teaching service requirements under the Higher Education Act in certain circumstances.Subtitle C: Labor ProvisionsPaid Public Health Emergency Leave MinimumsEmployers may, but are not required to, pay any more than $200 per day and $10,000 in the aggregate for each employee for public health emergency leave under section 110(b)(2)(B) of the Family & Medical Leave Act of 1993 as amended by the Emergency Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act.Rehire Eligibility for Paid Public Health Emergency Leave EmployersFor purposes of public health emergency leave under the Emergency Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act, an eligible employee is an employee who has been employed for at least 30 calendar days by an employer with respect to whom leave is requested. The employee must be employed for at least 30 calendar days, which includes an employee who was laid off by that employer on or after March 1, 2020, had worked for employer for not less than 30 of the last 60 calendar days prior to the employees layoff, and was rehired by the employer.Emergency Paid Sick Leave MinimumsEmployers may, but are not required to, pay any more than:$511 per day or $5,110 in the aggregate for each employee when taking emergency paid sick leave if the employee is subject to a federal, state or local quarantine or isolation order related to COVID-19, the employee has been advised by a health care provider to self-quarantine due to concerns related to COVID-19, or the employee is experiencing symptoms of COVID-19 and seeking medical diagnosis; or $200 per day or $2,000 in the aggregate for each employee when taking emergency paid sick leave if the employee is caring for an individual who is subject to a federal, state or local quarantine order, or is caring for an individual who has been advised to self-quarantine due to concerns related to COVID-19, the employee is caring for the employee's son or daughter, if the child’s school or childcare facility has been closed or the child’s care provider is unavailable due to COVID-19 precautions, or the employee is experiencing any other substantially similar condition specified by HHS in consultation with the Department of the Treasury and the Department of Labor.Advance Refunding of Payroll Credits for Required Paid Sick Leave and Required Paid Family LeaveEmployers can apply a credit in the amount calculated under subsection (a) of section 7001 or 7003 of the Family First Coronavirus Response Act, subject to the limitations placed by subsection (b) of section 7001 and 7003, both calculated through the end of the most recent payroll period in the quarter. In anticipation of a credit, the credit may be advanced according to forms and instructions to be provided by the Secretary of Labor. The Act ensures employers that the Secretary of Treasury shall waive any penalty under section 6656 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 for failure to make a deposit of the tax imposed under section 3111 (a) or 3221(a) of such Code if failure was due to anticipation of credit allowed.vii. Subtitle D: Finance CommitteeAn additional safe harbor provision is added to section 223(c)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code, providing that a plan shall not fail to be treated as a high deductible health plan (HDHP) by reason of failing to have a deductible for telehealth and other remote care services. Section 223(c)(1)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code is adjusted to include “telehealth and other remote care.” This addition allows an individual to have an insurance plan (for plan years beginning on or before December 31, 2021) that includes telehealth and other remote care without disqualifying the individual from owning an HDHP.Inclusion of Certain Over-the-Counter Medical Products as Qualified Medical ExpensesMenstrual care products are now included under the term “qualified medical expenses.” Increasing Medicare Telehealth Flexibilities During Emergency Period The amendment removes some limiting qualifications to section 1320b-5(b)(8), which allows for the Secretary of HHS to temporarily waive or modify the application of portions of the Social Security Act in the case of a telehealth service furnished in any emergency area during an emergency period. The provision that sets out the defined term “qualified provider,” which limited 1320b-5(b)(8), is removed in its entirety. Enhancing Medicare Telehealth Services for Federally Qualified Health Centers and Rural Health Clinics During Emergency PeriodA new provision is added under Section 1834(m) of the Social Security Act (42 USC 1395m(m)), enhancing payment for telehealth services furnished via a telecommunications system by a federally qualified health center (FQHC) or rural health clinic (RHC) during an “emergency period” notwithstanding that the FQHC or the RHC providing the telehealth service is not at the same location as the beneficiary. Payment methods for FQHCs or RHCs that serve as distant sites shall be based on payment rates similar to the national average payment rates for comparable telehealth services under the physician fee schedule under section 1848.Temporary Waiver of Requirement for Face-to-Face Visits Between Home Dialysis Patients and PhysiciansAmended section 1395rr(b)(3)(B) to allow the Secretary of HHS to waive the requirement that individuals with end stage renal disease receiving home dialysis must receive certain periodic face-to-face (non-telehealth) clinical assessments in order to be eligible to receive end stage disease-related clinical assessments via telehealth. Use of Telehealth to Conduct Face-to-Face Encounter Prior to Recertification of Eligibility for Hospice Care During Emergency PeriodSection 1395f(a)(7)(D)(i) is amended to allow a hospice physician or hospice nurse practitioner during an “emergency period” to conduct a face-to-face encounter via telehealth to determine recertification for continued eligibility for hospice care.Encouraging Use of Telecommunications Systems for Home Health Services Furnished During Emergency PeriodDuring an emergency period, the Secretary of HHS shall consider ways to encourage the use of telecommunications systems.Improving Care Planning for Medicare Home Health ServicesCertain Medicare sections are expanded from being limited to the services of a physician to include services of nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, and physician assistants that provide home health services.Adjustment of SequestrationA temporary suspension of Medicare sequestration put into effect during the period of May 1, 2020 through December 31, 2020. The Medicare programs under title XVIII of the Social Security Act shall be exempt from reduction under any sequestration order during the period.Medicare Hospital Inpatient Prospective Payment System Add-On Payment for COVID-19 Patients During Emergency PeriodThe Secretary of HHS will increase the weighting factor for coronavirus-diagnosed patients discharged during the emergency period. The weighting factor is used by the Secretary of HHS to reflect the relative hospital resources used with respect to discharges for a particular group compared to discharges within other groups.Increasing Access to Post-Acute Care During Emergency PeriodDuring the emergency period, the Secretary of HHS will waive the requirement that patients of inpatient rehabilitation facilities receive at least 15 hours of therapy per week. For long-term care hospitals furnishing services during the emergency period, the Secretary of HHS will further waive discharge percent requirements and the general application of site neutral payment rates.Revising Payment Rates for Durable Medical Equipment Under the Medicare Program Through Duration of Emergency PeriodThe Secretary of HHS shall apply the transition rule, described in 42 C.F.R. § 414.210(g)(9)(iii), to items and services furnished in rural areas and noncontiguous areas as planned through December 31, 2020, and through the duration of the emergency period. For areas other than rural and noncontiguous areas, the Secretary of HHS shall apply the transition rule described in 42 C.F.R. § 414.210(g)(9)(iv) through the remainder of the emergency period.Coverage of the COVID-19 Vaccine Under Part B of the Medicare Program Without Any Cost-SharingThe term “medical and other health services” is expanded to include “COVID-19 vaccine and administration.” The deductible described in section 1395l(b) shall not apply with respect to a COVID-19 vaccine and its administration.Requiring Medicare Prescription Drug Plans and MA-PD Plans to Allow for Fills and Refills of Covered Part D Drugs for up to a 3-Month SupplyDuring the emergency period, a prescription drug plan or MA-PD plan shall permit a part D eligible individual reenrolled in such plan to obtain a single fill or refill the total day supply prescribed for such individual for a covered part D drug.Providing Home and Community-Based Services in Acute Care HospitalsThe prohibition that nothing in section 1395a allows the Secretary of HHS authorization to limit the amount of payment that may be made under a plan for home-and-community care is expanded to include home and community-based services, self-directed personal assistance services, or home and community-based attendant services. The provision is also expanded to clarify that the section shall not be construed to prohibit receipt of any care or services specified in paragraph (1) in an acute care hospital, provided certain requirements are met.Clarification Regrading Uninsured Individuals The Families First Coronavirus Response Act, enacted last week, added subsection (ss) to section 1396a, which defined “uninsured individual” as those not described in section 1396a(a)(10)(A)(i) and not enrolled in certain health care programs. The CARES Act amends this definition to exclude subsection VIII if the individual is a resident of a state that does not furnish medical assistance as described. Clarification Regarding Coverage of COVID-19 Testing ProductsThe Families First Coronavirus Response Act, enacted last week, added COVID-19 testing to section 1396d, which provides medical assistance payments under certain conditions. The CARES Act amends this section by removing the requirement that the in-vitro diagnostic products administered are approved, cleared, or authorized under sections 510(k), 513, 514, or 564 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.Amendment Relating to Reporting Requirements with Respect to Clinical Diagnostic Laboratory TestsThe CARES Act extends the dates by one year for the reporting periods in section 1395m-1(a)(1)(B). The applicable prohibition that payment amounts determined under section 1395m-1 shall not result in a reduction in payments, as defined by the subsection, for a clinical diagnostic laboratory test is expanded to 2017 through 2024. The applicable percentages used to determine the limits on reductions in payment defined in 1395m-1(b)(3)(A) are adjusted to include a new clause for 2021, which makes the new applicable percentage zero (0) for 2021.Expansion of Medicare Hospital Accelerated Payment Program During the COVID-19 Public Health EmergencyMandates that the Secretary of HHS expand the accelerated payment program to hospitals experiencing significant cash flow problems during the “emergency period.” Exception for Certain States from Enhanced FMAP Requirements Provides that states may receive the temporary increase of Medicaid Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP) (authorized under the Families First Act enacted last week) notwithstanding the requirement to not impose premiums on beneficiaries, for a period of 30 days.viii. Subtitle E, Part I: Medicare ProvisionsExtension of Funding for Quality Measure Endorsement, Input, and SelectionThe Social Security Act is amended to increase the amount allotted for this fiscal year ending on October 1, 2020 from $4,830,000 to $20,000,000 and for the period beginning on October 1, 2020 and ending on November 30, 2020, the amount equal to the pro rata portion of $20,000,000. Extension of Funding Outreach and Assistance for Low-Income ProgramsThe amount allocated for state health insurance programs shall be $13,000,000 for this fiscal year. For the period beginning on October 1, 2020 and ending on November 30, 2020, the amount available will be equal to the pro rata portion of $13,000,000.The amount allocated for area agencies on aging shall be $7,500,000 for the fiscal year of 2020. For the period beginning on October 1, 2020 and ending on November 30, 2020, the amount available will be equal to the pro rata portion of $7,500,000.The amount allocated for aging and disability resource centers shall be $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2020. For the period beginning on October 1, 2020 and ending on November 30, 2020, the amount available will be equal to the pro rata portion of $5,000,000.The amount allocated for grant or contract with national center for benefits and outreach enrollment is now $12,000,000 for the 2020 fiscal year ending on October 1, 2020. For the period beginning on October 1, 2020 and ending on November 30, 2020, the amount available will be equal to the pro rata portion of $12,000,000.Subtitle E, Part II: Medicaid ProvisionsExtension of the Money Follows the Person Rebalancing Demonstration ProgramThe Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 section 6071(h)(1)(G) is amended to allocate $337,500,000 for the period beginning on January 1, 2020 and ending on September 30, 2020. For the period beginning on October 1, 2020 and ending on November 30, 2020, the amount available will be equal to the pro rata portion of $337,500,000.Extension of Spousal Impoverishment ProtectionsExtends the protections through November 30, 2020.Allows the State to disregard the income of a spouse and conduct an analysis solely on an individual’s eligibility for medical assistance on the basis of reduction of income.Delay of DSH ReductionsThis section removes the $4 billion DSH reductions for federal fiscal year 2020 and delays the cuts from taking effect December 1, 2020. Extension and Expansion of Community Mental Health Services Demonstration ProgramExpands the Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014.According to this section not later than 6 months after the date of enactment, the Secretary shall select two states, in addition to the eight States already listed, to participate in two-year demonstration programs that meet the requirements of this subsection.The requirements are states that:Were awarded planning grants, Applied to participate in the demonstration programs under this subsection but were not selectedThe Secretary shall use the results of its evaluation of the state’s original application and shall not require the submission of any additional application.If a state is selected it is required to: Submit a plan to monitor certified community behavioral health clinics under the demonstration program to ensure compliance with certified community behavioral health criteria during the demonstration period; and Commit to collecting data, notifying the Secretary of any planned changes that would deviate from the prospective payment system methodology outlined in the state’s demonstration application, and obtaining approval from the Secretary of any such change before implementing change.The Federal matching percentage applicable to amounts expended by states participating in the demonstration program under this subsection shall apply to amounts expended by the state during the fiscal period that begins on January 1, 2020 if the state was participating in the demonstration program as of January 1, 2020 and shall apply to amount expensed by the state during the first fiscal period the state participates if the state was selected pursuant to the expansion. Subtitle E, Part III: Human Services and Other Health ProgramsExtension of Sexual Risk Avoidance Education ProgramSection 510 of the Social Security Act is amended to extend the time through 2020 instead of ending in May 22, 2020 and to change the fiscal year to 2021. Extension of Demonstration Projects to Address Health Professions Work-Force NeedsActivities authorized by section 2008 of the Social Security Act shall continue through November 30, 2020. Extension of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program and Related ProgramsActivities authorized by part 1 of title IV and section 1108(b) of the Social Security Act shall continue through November 30, 2020. Subtitle E, Part IV: Public Health ProvisionsExtension for Community Health Centers, the National Health Service Corps, and Teaching Health Centers that Operate GME ProgramsThe amount allocated for community health centers under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is increased to $4,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2020 and $668,493,151 for the period beginning on October 1, 2020 and ending on November 30, 2020.The amount allocated for the National Health Service Corps is now $310,000,000 for fiscal year 2020 and $51,808,219 for the period beginning on October 1, 2020 and ending in November 30, 2020.The amount allocated for teaching health centers that operate graduate medical education programs now extends through fiscal year 2020 and $21,141,096 is allocated for the period beginning on October 1, 2020 and ending on November 30, 2020.Diabetes ProgramsThe amount allocated under the Public Health Service Act for Type I will extend through the fiscal year of 2020 and $25,068,493 will be allocated for the period beginning on October 1, 2020 and ending on November 30, 2020.The amount allocated under the Public Health Services Act for Indians will extend through the 2020 fiscal year and $25,068,493 will be allocated for the period beginning on October 1, 2020 and ending on November 30, 2020.xii. Subtitle F, Part I: Over-the-Counter DrugsAmends Chapter V of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) to insert a new section regulating certain nonprescription drugs that are marketed without an approved drug application under section 505 of the FD&C Act. This new section primarily achieves two goals: (1) reforms the regulatory process for over-the-counter (OTC) drug approvals permitting the FDA more flexibility to make changes administratively, rather than through the time-consuming full notice and comment rulemaking process; and (2) incentivizes pharmaceutical companies to research and manufacture innovative drug products by providing an 18-month market-exclusivity period to reward investments for new OTC drugs.Amends Section 502 of the FD&C Act, to clarify that an OTC drug which does not comply with the requirements of its OTC monograph, which is essentially an approved recipe for a drug product, is considered misbranded. The FD&C Act prohibits the introduction of misbranded drugs into interstate commerce.Clarifies that nothing in the CARES Act will apply to drugs previously excluded by the FDA from the Over-the-Counter Drug Review under the original 1972 Federal Register document.Clarifies that sponsors of sunscreen ingredients with pending orders have the option to see review in accordance with the Sunscreen Innovation Act (SIA) or to see review under the new monograph review process. The election must be made within 180 calendar days of the date of enactment of the CARES Act. Provides an annual procedure to update Congress on the appropriate pediatric indication for certain OTC cough and cold drugs for children under the age of six. The evaluation consists of conditions under which nonprescription drugs are generally recognized as safe and effective.Makes technical corrections to the FDA Reauthorization Act of 2017 (Public Law 115-52).xiii. Subtitle F, Part II: User FeesDeclares that the fees paid pursuant to this section will be dedicated to FDA review of over-the-counter monograph drugs as set forth in the goals section and in letters from the Secretary of HHS to certain congressional committees.Establishes a new FDA user fee to allow the agency to hire additional staff members to ensure there is adequate agency oversight to approve changes to OTC drugs.Title IV – Economic Stabilization and Assistance to Severely Distressed Sectors of the United States Economy Foley Title IV Contact: Christopher SwiftTitle IV of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Securities Act provides the Secretary of the Treasury with the authority to make loans or loan guarantees to states, municipalities, and eligible businesses and loosens a variety of regulations created in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, and others.ii.Subtitle A – Coronavirus Stabilization Act of 2020Emergency Relief and Taxpayer ProtectionsThe Act authorizes the Treasury Secretary to make up to $500 billion worth of loans and loan guarantees to eligible businesses, states, and municipalities. The term “eligible business” includes passenger air carriers or any other business that has not already received adequate economic relief in the form of loans or loan guarantees under other provisions of the Act. The Act reserves $46 billion to support passenger air carriers, air cargo carriers, and businesses important to maintaining national security. The Act establishes a $454 billion credit facility for Federal Reserve programs designed to support lending to eligible businesses, states, and municipalities. This program contemplates various loans and loan guarantees for distressed businesses.Businesses that receive loans through these Federal Reserve programs are prohibited from paying dividends or repurchasing stock (or other outstanding equity interests) while the loan or loan guarantee is outstanding, as well as for the 12 months following repayment. These businesses are subject to the same employee compensation restrictions as listed for air carriers, air cargo carriers, and businesses deemed important to maintaining national security. Although the Treasury Secretary can waive these restrictions, he must identify and explain the rationale for such waivers in testimony before Congress.Businesses that receive loans or loan guarantees through these Federal Reserve programs can only make loans (or other advances) to business that are incorporated in the United States. Transfers to subsidiaries and affiliates incorporated outside the United States are prohibited.The Act directs the Treasury Secretary to establish a program to provide low-interest loans for eligible businesses (including nonprofit organizations) with between 500 and 10,000 employees. Although these loans will require no repayment for at least six months, businesses and non-profit organizations seeking this support must provide a good-faith certification that they meet the following criteria:The company intends to maintain at least 90 percent of their current workforce;The company will not pay dividends or repurchase stock (or other equity securities);The company will not outsource or offshore jobs during the loan period or two years thereafter;The company will not abrogate existing collective bargaining agreements with labor unions; and The company will remain neutral regarding current or future union organizing activity.Limitation on Certain Employee CompensationThe Act also imposes certain compensation caps for officers and employees at companies receiving loans or loan guarantees. Under these caps, officers or employees that received $425,000 or more in total compensation in 2019 will have their future compensation capped at the amount they received that year. This cap applies while the loan or loan guarantee is in effect, as well as to the 12 consecutive months after the loan or loan guarantee is no longer outstanding. The same restriction also applies to severance payments or other compensation received upon termination from businesses participating on the loan and loan guarantee programs.Additional caps apply for officers and employees whose total compensation exceeded $3,000,000 in 2019. Under the Act, these individuals may receive compensation up to $3,000,000 plus 50 percent of the excess over $3,000,000 of the total compensation received by the officer or employee in 2019. For example, an officer or employee whose total 2019 compensation was $3,000,010 would be restricted to total compensation of $3,000,005 in subsequent years. Like the lower cap discussed above, this restriction applies while the loan or loan guarantee is in effect, as well as to the 12 consecutive months after the loan or loan guarantee is no longer outstanding.Continuation of Certain Air ServicesThe Secretary of Transportation may require any air carrier receiving loans or loan guarantees under Section 4003 to maintain scheduled air transportation services as the Secretary deems necessary to maintain service to any destination the carrier served before March 1, 2020. The Secretary of Transportation is to consider the needs of “small and remote communities” and “health care and pharmaceutical supply chains” when enforcing this portion of the Act.Suspension of Certain Aviation Excise TaxesThe Act suspends the imposition of aviation excise taxes as otherwise required under the Internal Revenue Code through December 31, 2020.Debt Guarantee AuthorityIn order to backstop solvent depository institutions, it appears that the CARES ACT allows the FDIC to establish a program to insure these institutions without regard to a maximum amount. All such guarantees are to last at least until December 31, 2020.Temporary Government in the Sunshine Act ReliefIn the event that unusual and exigent circumstances continue to exist, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System may conduct meetings with less restrictive and formal meeting notification and record-keeping requirements until December 31, 2020. Temporary Hiring FlexibilityWithout regard to certain statutory hiring requirements, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development and the Securities Exchange Commission are given flexibility to recruit and appoint candidates for temporary and term appointments as necessary to prevent, prepare for, or respond to COVID-19 during the “covered period” of the CARES Act.Temporary Lending Limit WaiverEnlarges exception to requirement on the maximum amount of loans and extensions of credit by a national banking association to include a nonbank financial company (as defined in Section 102 of the Financial Stability Act of 2010) and allows the Comptroller o
What is a pension fund?A pension fund is a retirement scheme created by a company or public employer in order to save money for its employees. Belonging to a pension fund may be compulsory or optional. Employees make contributions to the fund, as do employers most of the time. When an employee retires, they can choose to receive a lump sum right away, or a series of regular payments throughout their retirement, like an annuity. That’s how a funded pension scheme works, because the plan has enough assets to pay retirees for the foreseeable future. On the other hand, with unfunded plans, payments are made directly from contributions and no capital is accumulated. The pension fund system first developed in Scotland, with the creation of the “Scottish Widows” scheme in 1815. That insured widows of Scottish soldiers killed during the Napoleonic wars with France. Nowadays, pension funds are particularly common in the United States, but the largest pension fund in the world is Japan’s Government Pension Investment Fund. It was created in 1954 and now manages assets of $1.4 trillion.Pension plans rely on asset management companies to look after the contributions they receive. These companies, generally banks, insurers or specialists, aim to maintain the capital held in the fund and make a profit. American global investment management corporation BlackRock is the number one in the world, with over $7 trillion in assets managed as of the end of 2019.Their activities are strictly regulated. Each country has its own prudential standards. All capital collected must be divided between a number of asset classes. The primary law governing pension plans in the USA is the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.Some funds are defined benefit pension plans, whereby the pension payment or lump sum is guaranteed. But these are getting rarer and rarer, giving way to defined contribution schemes. This means only the contributions collected are guaranteed. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
The Employee Benefits Security Administration, or EBSA enforces your pension rights and employer-based health plans under ERISA – the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. They do a lot more, too, […] The post The Employee Benefit Security Administration: Their Mission Is to Protect Your Pension appeared first on KKFI.
QUESTION PRESENTED: Whether the three-year limitations period in Section 413(2) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. 1113(2), which runs from "the earliest date on which the plaintiff had actual knowledge of the breach or violation," bars suit where all of the relevant information was disclosed to the plaintiff by the defendants more than three years before the plaintiff filed the complaint, but the plaintiff chose not to read or could not recall having read the information. --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/scotus/support
A case in which the Court held that under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 requirement that plaintiffs with “actual knowledge” of an alleged fiduciary breach must file suit within three years of gaining that knowledge, a plaintiff does not necessarily have “actual knowledge” of the information contained in disclosures that he receives but does not read or cannot recall reading.
QUESTION PRESENTED: In Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer, this Court unanimously held that to state a claim under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA''), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq., for breach of the fiduciary duty of prudence based on inside information, a plaintiff must "plausibly allege[] that a prudent fiduciary in the defendant's position could not have concluded that [an alternative action] would do more harm than good to the fund." 573 U.S. 409, 429-30 (2014); accord Amgen Inc. v. Harris, 136 S. Ct. 758 (2016). The Court designed this "context specific" standard to deter the kind of meritless suits lower courts had eliminated through a presumption of prudence (which the Court rejected) and to "readily divide the plausible sheep from the meritless goats" at the pleading stage. 573 U.S. at 425. In the decision below, the Court of Appeals subverted that pleading standard and opened a circuit split by relying on boilerplate allegations that the harm of an eventual disclosure of an alleged fraud typically increases the longer the fraud continues. Those allegations "always" can be, and routinely are, pleaded in support of a Fifth Third claim. Other courts of appeals have rejected the same allegations as insufficient as a matter of law, in order to avoid undermining the pleading standard imposed by Fifth Third and Amgen and to deter meritless ERISA suits. The question presented is: Whether Fifth Third's "more harm than good" pleading standard can be satisfied by generalized allegations that the harm of an inevitable disclosure of an alleged fraud generally increases over time. --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/scotus/support
Retirement plans operated by US employers collectively hold trillions of dollars in assets, so they have naturally become a target for litigation under their governing statute, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, commonly known as ERISA. Under ERISA, plan fiduciaries are subject to duties of loyalty and prudence, which can be enforced by the US Department of Labor or by private civil actions. Class actions targeting ERISA plan fiduciaries have been on the rise. Financial institutions are potentially implicated for the plans that they provide to their own employees and for the services that they provide to their clients. Mayer Brown partners Nancy Ross and Brian Netter discuss recent trends in ERISA litigation.
Michelle Roberts is a partner at the California law firm of Kantor & Kantor, LLP. She has spent her entire legal career helping individuals with disabilities obtain income replacement benefits from their employer’s group disability plans, and works from the heart after watching her father, a disabled veteran, struggle to work and support his family while dealing with the consequences of debilitating medical conditions. In so doing, she has worked with hundreds of clients with invisible illnesses and understands the unique challenges of proving disability to an insurance company. Her focus is handling claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, also known as ERISA. Michelle is a recognized “Super Lawyer” in her field and speaks and writes regularly about the developments in ERISA law. Michelle received her law degree from the University of California, Berkeley School of Law. Join us as Michelle shares… - what ERISA is, and how it applies to the disability community - her personal connection to the disability community, and disabled veterans - the role of the opioid crisis in legal proceedings under ERISA - that she happily takes on an empathic role with her clients - typical social security benefits turnaround time: 1.5-2 years - that client surveillance is fairly common in the insurance field - the importance of quality mental health care - the moral imperative of employers to provide benefits that include mental health services - her volunteer work in the local legal community, through Legal Aid and the AIDS Legal Referral Panel - tips for Spoonies on obtaining disability insurance and fighting claim denials
Host John Chapman of the John Chapman Show talks about the choices you can make as they pertain to your old 401ks. John will also help you understand IRAs, and compare the traditional IRA to the Roth IRA and what exactly a self-employed 401k is. Episode Highlights: John Chapman introduces the show topic of the options for your old 401ks. What is your greatest asset? What are your options for your old 401k? What are the cons of your 401k options? What makes the IRA unique? How does the Solo 401k work and who uses them? 3 Key Points: You are your biggest asset so keep improving yourself and increase your ability to earn. Options for old 401ks include: keep it where it is at if it is over $5,000, roll it into your new company, roll it over to a traditional IRA account. The universe of ETFs are over 5,000 and common stocks have over 8,000 on US exchanges. Tweetable Quotes: “I’m a huge advocate for you treating yourself with the care and attention and tenderness that you would an asset, like a piece of real estate.”– John Chapman “IRA accounts, they were signed into law with the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, commonly know ERISA.”– John Chapman “The universe of mutual funds is like 14,00 mutual funds. It’s huge.”– John Chapman Resources Mentioned: ● Linkedin: John Chapman
After 10 episodes, Ed and Scott finally address the elephant in the room: ERISA … and why it should be your friend. We’ve discussed how it applies to everything from wilderness therapy to specialty drugs but what exactly is ERISA? Well, it’s an acronym for the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, but it applies to so much more than retirement plans. What employer-sponsored health and welfare benefits does ERISA apply to? When ERISA does apply, what does it require? (This question may or may not be a loaded one.) What on earth does ERISA have to do with Ed’s wife, bread or grilled cheese? What is the “crown jewel” of ERISA, and why should employers care? What does it take to reach your own moment of ERISA zen? What other laws are “parked in the ERISA garage?” Is Scott’s mom proud of him? And more.
Today's episode is a tragedy in three acts, bringing together three seemingly-unrelated stories: (1) understanding the looming crisis at the Pension Benefits ordonuarantee Corporation; (2) figuring out who Gordon Hartogensis is and why he's about to gain control over potentially hundreds of billions of dollars in assets; and finally, (3) putting together all the pieces to see how President Trump has acted to protect his crony, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, from potential criminal and civil liability in connection with his management of Sears. Strap in; it's going to be a bumpy ride! We begin in Act I, in which the guys break down the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), its creation, the Pension Benefits Guaranty Corporation (PBGC), and the developments over the last 45 years that have pushed the PBGC to the brink of collapse. Act II, then, takes over with the recently-appointed International Man of Mystery, Gordon Hartogensis, to lead the PBGC. Who is this guy, and what has he done to inspire confidence that he can right the ship? Listen and find out! Act III weaves these stories together with the ongoing civil lawsuit by Sears against Steven Mnuchin and his buddy Eddie Lampert, who are alleged to have looted Sears's assets, driving it into bankruptcy. You'll never guess who bought those assets in bankruptcy... or, perhaps you'll instantly guess who did. After all that, it's time for the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam #128 involving a crazy fast-food heist involving an imaginary sniper and the drive-thru lane. Did you get it right?? Appearances None! If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links Check out ERISA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001 et seq. You can also read the text and a breakdown of the key provisions of the PPA, which passed the Senate 93-5. For a sad laugh, check out the PBGC's own scant "Who the hell is Gordon Hartogensis?" page. The first person to break this story was Politico's Ian Kullgren, who wrote this article. We first covered the Sears/Lampert/Mnuchin story back in Episode 273, and you can read the Warren/Ocasio-Cortez letter here. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don't forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com!
In episode 17 of Absolute Trust Talk, Kirsten welcomes Kantor & Kantor, LLP partner Michelle Roberts into the studio. Michelle has focused her entire career on helping claimants win disability claims under employer-provided disability plans. She is also a specialist in the act that governs disability benefits provided by employers, known as ERISA, which stands for the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. In this episode, she highlights the most important tips, tricks, and strategies surrounding all things disability income. Kirsten and Michelle begin by talking about the different types of disability income. They later discuss common mistakes that people make when filing for disability, and why it’s crucial for someone filing for disability to seek an attorney’s advice. Then Kirsten and Michelle break down the multitude of ways in which claimants can get into trouble when their claim gets denied, limitations that people might not realize about disability policies and what types of disability are covered by private plans. Top Takeaway from Episode #017: If you do have a denied disability claim, seek legal advice before you move forward – there are too many pitfalls that could cause even more damage. Time-stamped Show Notes: 2:30 – Michelle starts by discussing the different types of disability income benefits that are available 5:40 – Because the focus of the show is on private benefits, Michelle highlights what ERISA is and how it governs disability income benefits 9:47 – Kirsten asks Michelle to share some of the most common mistakes she sees people make when they are trying to get disability from employers 13:20 – Why it’s important for someone filing disability to talk to an attorney before going it alone and getting the process started 18:05 – If a claim initially gets denied, but the appeal gets approved, does the claimant get the full amount they were originally pursuing? 19:50 – Michelle discusses how “pre-existing condition” applies to the disability world 22:00 – Kirsten asks Michelle, “Are there other limitations buried in these policies that people need to know about?” 26:00 – It sounds like an expensive process of pursuing legal help to apply for disability in the right way. Is that a deterrent for people? 27:25 – Michelle discusses what types of policies are covered by private policies Episode #017 Freebie: Filing for disability might seem straightforward, but what many people don’t realize is that it is much trickier than, “My doctor says I’m injured and can’t work.” Absolute Trust Talk guest and disability expert Michelle Roberts is sharing with listeners a vital planning tool called A Guide to Disability Benefits. This straightforward blueprint lays out the different types of disability benefits and walks you through the steps to pursuing a disability claim not just the right way, but also the smart way. Click here to download your copy of A Guide to Disability Benefits. Resources/Tools/Links Mentioned In This Episode: Michelle’s Blog – Your ERISA Watch: www.erisawatch.com Michelle’s Guest Blog Appearance on Absolute Trust Counsel Blog: What’s In Your Medical Records? The Importance of Doctor’s Notes to Support Long-Term Disability Claims Under ERISA
This episode was a real treat for me and hopefully will be for you. I am excited share my conversation with The Honorable Phyllis Borzi, the former Assistant Secretary of Labor for the Employee Benefits Security Administration under President Obama. We covered a range of topics that regardless of your involvement with workplace retirement plans should keep your interest. I am also proud that while we talked about her time at the DOL, the majority of our focus was looking forward and exploring how her experience can help employers today and those who want to shape the future of the workplace retirement system. We also hit on two pieces of unfinished business Phyllis wished she had more time to work on while she was at the DOL, what the Perez Principle is and whether employers also suffer from choice overload in retirement plans. Finally, we cover a few topics near and dear to her heart and what she thinks of some of the current retirement proposals in front of congress today to reform the retirement system. Be prepared for some candid insight and some very different perspective than frankly what I expected going into the conversation. And don't miss our call to action at the end. Guest Bio: The Honorable Phyllis C. Borzi served as the Assistant Secretary of Labor for the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA), an agency that oversees approximately 700,000 private-sector retirement plans, approximately 2.3 million group health plans, and a similar number of other welfare benefit plans that provide benefits to approximately 150 million Americans. As agency head, she oversaw the administration, regulation and enforcement of Title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). Among her other duties as Assistant Secretary of Labor, she represented the Department of Labor in overseeing implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) insurance market reforms and other ACA rules affecting employer-sponsored group health plans and she was instrumental in the development of various pension regulations, including the Department’s rule requiring individuals providing financial advice to plan sponsors and retirement investors to act as ERISA fiduciaries. Ms. Borzi also represented the Secretary of Labor in the Secretary’s role as statutory trustee for the Social Security (OASDI) and Medicare Trust Funds and in the Secretary’s capacity as chair of the Board of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC). Previously, Ms. Borzi was a research professor in the Department of Health Policy at George Washington University Medical Center's School of Public Health and Health Services. In that position, she was involved in research and policy analysis involving employee benefit plans, the uninsured, managed care, and legal barriers to the development of health information technology. In addition, she was of counsel with the Washington, D.C. law firm of O'Donoghue & O'Donoghue LLP, specializing in ERISA and other legal issues affecting employee benefit plans, including pensions and retirement savings, health plans, and discrimination based on age or disability. From 1979 to 1995, Ms. Borzi served as pension and employee benefit counsel for the U.S. House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Labor-Management Relations of the Committee on Education and Labor. In 1993, she served on working groups dealing with insurance reform, workers' compensation and employer coverage in connection with the Clinton Task Force on Health Care Reform. Ms. Borzi is a charter member and former President of the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel and served on its Board of Governors from 2000-2008; former member and former co-chair of the Advisory Board of the BNA Pension & Benefits Reporter; former member of the Advisory Committee of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation; and former member of the Advisory Board of the Pension Research Council, The Wharton School, The University of Pennsylvania; and former member of the Board of the Women's Institute for a Secure Retirement (WISER). In 2007, she was appointed by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio and served as a public member of the Administrative Committee for the Goodyear retiree health trust until 2009. Ms. Borzi has published numerous articles on ERISA, health care law and policy and retirement security issues and has been a frequent speaker to legal, professional, business, consumer and state and local governmental organizations both in the United States and internationally. An active member of the American Bar Association, Borzi is the former chair of the ABA's Joint Committee on Employee Benefits. She holds a Master of Arts degree in English from Syracuse University and a J.D. from Catholic University Law School, where she was editor-in-chief of the law review. Ms. Borzi currently is a member of the Board of Visitors of the Catholic University Law School. She is a member of the District of Columbia Bar and is admitted to practice before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court. 401(k) Fridays Podcast Overview Struggling with a fiduciary issue, looking for strategies to improve employee retirement outcomes or curious about the impact of current events on your retirement plan? We've had conversations with retirement industry leaders to address these and other relevant topics! You can easily explore over one hundred prior on-demand audio interviews here. Don't forget to subscribe as we release a new episode each Friday!
Question: Can we require that employees exhaust their vacation and sick time at the beginning of an approved medical leave of absence? Answer: Generally, an employer may require employees to exhaust their paid time off when a medical leave, such as that under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), is unpaid. When not required, employees may choose to use their paid time off, vacation, or sick pay benefits to maintain income for part of their leave. Whether using paid leave or not, leave taken for an FMLA-qualified reason is job-protected. If an employee is receiving any wage replacement benefits (such as benefits paid under a disability plan or workers’ compensation) during an FMLA leave, the employee generally may not use, and the employer may not require the employee to use, any accrued or accumulated paid benefit time. There are exceptions in some states, where employees may be allowed to combine workers’ compensation or disability plan benefits with paid time off benefits to further supplement income while on leave. Exhaustion of paid leave is usually allowed where employers extend leave as an accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) or comparable state laws. As paid sick leave laws continue to be mandated in states and localities, be sure to check your state and local laws before drafting policies that require employees to use their paid leave. In all cases, your policies regarding use of paid time during medical leaves of absence should be clear and understandable. A best practice is to have all policies regarding leave in your employee handbook and available to all employees. Question: What events must employers report to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)? Answer: All employers are required to notify OSHA when an employee is killed on the job or suffers a work-related hospitalization, amputation, or loss of an eye as follows: Employers must report work-related fatalities within eight hours of finding out about the fatality. For any inpatient hospitalization, amputation, or eye loss, employers must report the incident within 24 hours of learning about the incident. Only fatalities occurring within 30 days of the work-related incident must be reported to OSHA. Further, for an inpatient hospitalization, amputation, or loss of an eye, incidents must be reported to OSHA only if they occur within 24 hours of the work-related incident. Importantly, starting in 2017, many employers are required to electronically submit their summary of injuries and illnesses to OSHA. Read more on the following websites about required electronic reporting: Information about electronic submission of injury and illness records (https://www.osha.gov/recordkeeping/finalrule/index.html) . Injury Tracking Application (https://www.osha.gov/injuryreporting/index.html) . OSHA serious event online reporting website (https://www.osha.gov/pls/ser/serform.html) . However, employers do not have to report an event if it: Resulted from a motor vehicle accident on a public street or highway (except in a construction work zone). Occurred on a commercial or public transportation system such as an airplane or bus. Involved hospitalization for diagnostic testing or observation only. Reporting requirements may be more stringent in states with OSHA-approved state plans, so check your state’s reporting rules in addition to the federal OSHA regulations to avoid state citations and penalties. Question: What benefits are subject to ERISA? Answer: Whether a benefit offered by an employer is subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) will depend upon whether the benefit is an “employee welfare benefit plan” pursuant to § 3(1) of ERISA. Employee welfare benefit plans include, but are not limited to, any plan, fund, or program established or maintained by an employer, employee organization, or both, that
On June 5, 2017, the Supreme Court decided Advocate Health Care Network v. Stapleton, which is consolidated with Saint Peter’s Healthcare System v. Kaplan, and Dignity Health v. Rollins. The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) requires that employee retirement plans contain certain safeguards, but exempts “church plan[s]” from these requirements. Under 29 U.S.C. 1002(33)(A), the term “church plan” means “a plan established and maintained… by a church or by a convention or association of churches which is exempt from tax….” After a controversy involving an Internal Revenue Service determination that the church plan exemption did not encompass pension plans established and maintained by two orders of Catholic sisters for the employees of their hospitals, Congress amended the statute to add subsection (C), which provides: “A plan established and maintained for its employees (or their beneficiaries) by a church or by a convention or association of churches includes a plan maintained by an organization, whether a civil law corporation or otherwise, the principal purpose or function of which is the administration or funding of a plan or program for the provision of retirement benefits or welfare benefits, or both, for the employees of a church or a convention or association of churches, if such organization is controlled by or associated with a church or a convention or association of churches.” -- Plaintiffs in this case are a group of employees who work for church-affiliated non-profits. Plaintiffs sued the non-profits, alleging that their retirement plans are subject to ERISA and that by failing to adhere to ERISA’s requirements the non-profits have breached their respective fiduciary duties. Defendants moved for summary judgment, but the district court denied the motions because it determined that a plan established and maintained by a church-affiliated organization was not a church plan within the meaning of the statutory language. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed. -- By a vote of 8-0, the Court reversed the judgment of the Seventh Circuit. In an opinion by Justice Kagan, the Court held that under ERISA, a defined-benefit pension plan maintained by a principal-purpose organization -- one controlled by or associated with a church for the administration or funding of a plan for the church's employees -- qualifies as a "church plan," regardless of who established it. All members joined her opinion except for Justice Gorsuch, who took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. Justice Sotomayor filed a concurring opinion. -- To discuss the case, we have Eric Baxter who is Senior Counsel at The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.
Advocate Health Care v. Stapleton is a combination of three cases, Advocate Health Care v. Stapleton, St. Peter’s Healthcare v. Kaplan, and Dignity Health v. Rollins, that confront the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) as it applies to churches and non-church religious non-profits. ERISA sets minimum standards for pension plans in private industry, such as an appeals process for participants and the right to sue for benefits. Churches are exempted from ERISA, however, the circuit courts have split over whether non-profit hospitals and schools are also exempted. Eric Baxter of the Becket Fund joined us again to discuss the 8-0 decision issued by the Supreme Court on June 5. -- Featuring: Eric Baxter, Senior Counsel, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.
This is the third segment in a three-part series about the fundamentals of Payor-Provider Litigation. This webinar addresses the process employed by insurers to recoup payments from in-network and out-of-network providers. It also explains the procedural process and protections associated with an “adverse benefit determination” under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). Speaker: Lauren Garraux Download Program Materials
This is the second segment in a three-part series about the fundamentals of Payor-Provider Litigation. This webinar explains why providers are required to demonstrate “derivative standing” through an “assignment of benefits” in order to proceed with a payment dispute brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). Speaker: Lauren Garraux Download Program Materials
This is the first segment in a three-part series about the fundamentals of Payer-Provider Litigation. It explains that in-network providers are required to challenge reimbursement decisions under contract law and state law, while out-of-network providers are increasingly required to bring claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”). The webinar also describes the difference between “right to payment” claims and “rate of payment” claims, including which claims are generally preempted by ERISA. Speaker: Lauren Garraux Download Program Materials
On March 27, 2017, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Advocate Health Care Network v. Stapleton, which is consolidated with Saint Peter’s Healthcare System v. Kaplan and Dignity Health v. Rollins. The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) requires that employee retirement plans contain certain safeguards, but exempts “church plan[s]” from these requirements. Under 29 U.S.C. 1002(33)(A), the term “church plan” means “a plan established and maintained… by a church or by a convention or association of churches which is exempt from tax….” After a controversy involving an Internal Revenue Service determination that the church plan exemption did not encompass pension plans established and maintained by two orders of Catholic sisters for the employees of their hospitals, Congress amended the statute to add subsection (C), which provides: “A plan established and maintained for its employees (or their beneficiaries) by a church or by a convention or association of churches includes a plan maintained by an organization, whether a civil law corporation or otherwise, the principal purpose or function of which is the administration or funding of a plan or program for the provision of retirement benefits or welfare benefits, or both, for the employees of a church or a convention or association of churches, if such organization is controlled by or associated with a church or a convention or association of churches.” -- Plaintiffs in this case are a group of employees who work for Advocate Health Care Network (Advocate) and are members of Advocate’s retirement plan. Advocate is affiliated with a church, though it is not owned or financially operated by the church. Plaintiffs sued Advocate, arguing that the Advocate retirement plan is subject to ERISA, and therefore, by failing to adhere to ERISA’s requirements, Advocate has breached its fiduciary duty. Defendants moved for summary judgment, but the district court denied the motion because it determined that a plan established and maintained by a church-affiliated organization was not a church plan within the meaning of the statutory language. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed. -- The question now before the Supreme Court is whether the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974's church-plan exemption applies so long as a pension plan is maintained by an otherwise-qualifying church-affiliated organization, or whether the exemption applies only if, in addition, a church initially established the plan. -- To discuss the case, we have Eric Baxter, who is Senior Counsel of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.
This case is a combination of three cases, Advocate Health Care v. Stapleton, St. Peter’s Healthcare v. Kaplan, and Dignity Health v. Rollins, that confront the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) as it applies to churches and non-church religious non-profits. ERISA sets minimum standards for pension plans in private industry, such as an appeals process for participants and the right to sue for benefits. Churches are exempted from ERISA, however, the circuit courts have split over whether non-profit hospitals and schools are also exempted. Eric Baxter of the Becket Fund joined us to recap the oral arguments for this case, which were held on March 27. -- Featuring: Eric Baxter, Senior Counsel, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.
Today, Sid and Joe talk to ERISA litigation and disability insurance expert Michael Bartolic about the protections and shortcomings of the law that regulates all our employee benefits (retirement/pension, health, disability insurance, life insurance): The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended. Sid and Joe also talk about the Fourth Circuit's recent gun control decision holding that the Second Amendment does not cover AR-15 rifles; and new Supreme Court decisions about race-based recidivism and ineffective assistance of counsel, and the procedures that should have applied to a lawsuit over a schools exclusion of a disabled student's service dog. As if that weren't enough, the also answer listener questions! It's a great episode - listen up, and keep it legal!
Self Directed Investor Talk: Alternative Asset Investing through Self-Directed IRA's & Solo 401k's
Can you buy an OFFICE BUILDING in your self directed IRA or 401k? I’ll bet you think the answer is YES, don’t you? Actually, it’s only MAYBE. I’m Bryan Ellis. I’ll tell you why right now in Episode #239 of Self Directed Investor Talk… ---- Hello, SDI Nation! Welcome to the podcast of record for savvy self-directed investors like you where all we ask is 7 minutes a day… and what you get in return is self-directed investing MASTERY! A great show is in store for you today and I’d like to remind you that you can ALWAYS get to the show notes for any show by putting the episode number after the domain name SDITalk.com. For today, the show notes page is SDITalk.com/239… and you really should check it out. You doubtlessly hear me referring to articles, studies and links from time to time in this show, and all you’ve got to do to get access to all of that EXTRA SDI-goodness is to visit the show notes page where you’ll find the show itself, a full transcript, and all of the resources I just mentioned. Again, today’s show notes page is SDITalk.com/239. There’s one more link you should be aware of. It’s SDITalk.com/credit. I’ll make this short: If you have any need for investment or even business funding, and you’d like to get up to $250,000 at a ZERO interest rate, then go to SDITalk.com/credit, sign up for the free webinar that’s offered there, and learn how to do it. The guys behind that – Ari and Mike at Fund & Grow – are REAL pros, and they’ve provided over $4 MILLION in zero interest credit to your fellow members of SDI Nation in the past 12 months alone. Check them out at SDITalk.com/credit. Ok, so can you buy an office building in your IRA? This question was prompted by an article I saw where a rather conventional financial advisor struggled to answer this question correctly, so I’ve decided to grace you with the actual CORRECT version of things. The simple answer? YES. Your IRA can own an office building. There’s nothing in the law governing IRA’s – unless it’s changed dramatically in the last 24 hours – that prohibits your IRA from owning real estate, commercial buildings included. Same for 401k’s – they are absolutely allowed to own real estate. But there’s a BIG BUT – that sounded a little vile, hmmph – there’s a big EXCEPTION to consider, which is: Many commercial properties are owned by a business entity of some sort – such as a corporation or LLC. And it’s that entity which owns the real estate, and all of the accoutrements necessary to make that building a productive asset, like office equipment and such. So the real question to ask yourself is: Am I buying real estate, or am I buying a business entity that owns real estate. Still, one would think that there’s no problem, because just as the tax code governing your IRA doesn’t prevent your IRA from owning real estate, it also doesn’t prohibit your IRA from owning business entities. So we’re good, right? If the building is owned by an entity, just buy the entity, and it’s all good… right? Your IRA can just buy the entity that owns the building and you’re all set… right? You’d certainly think so since neither real estate nor business entities are on the short list of totally prohibited asset types. (Incidentally… do you know the things that ARE on the totally prohibited list of asset types? You can find out on the show notes page at SDITalk.com/239. Yes, that’s a shameless plug to get you to visit the website.) PROHIBITED ASSSETS go here in the fancy box https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/retirement-plans-faqs-regarding-iras-investments So can your IRA buy the entity that owns that building? Well… maybe. Probably, even. But if the entity that owns the building happens to be an S corporation, then your IRA is kind of out of luck, even though the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 - better known as ERISA – the law which created the IRA, certainly doesn’t prohibit it. But it’s prohibited nevertheless. Under the law that created S corporations on the federal level, there are some limits to who can own shares in S corporations. I’ll link to the relevant materials for you on SDITalk.com/239 but bottom line: IRA’s are excluded from that list. So, in this, as in everything where rules and regulations are concerned… reality is a bit more nuanced than any of us would like it to be. But there is a type of real estate I know you CAN own in your IRA… and that is TURNKEY RENTAL PROPERTY! You can learn more about that by calling my 24-hour free recorded info line at 773-TURNKEY, 773-TURNKEY. And a quick note – for any of you out in the Bay Area of California, well into Silicon Valley and surrounding areas… be sure to listen to the RADIO version of Self Directed Investor Talk every day at 3:00 pacific on KDOW 1220, the Wall Street Business Network! Those of you NOT in the Bay Area can listen in very easily too, through iHeartRadio… just stop by the show notes page at SDITalk.com/239 for a link to KDOW’s live feed on iHeartRadio. And YES… we’ll likely be in more markets very soon, like as in the first quarter of 2017, so very soon. My friends… thanks for joining me and remember: Invest wisely today, and live well forever! See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
Like many other multiemployer pension plans, the Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund was hit very hard by the financial crisis in 2008. In response, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, or ERISA, was amended to allow Central States and other critically underfunded plans to remain solvent through the approval of a so-called “rescue plan.” On May 6, 2016, Central States’ proposed Rescue Plan was rejected by the IRS. This would have huge implications not just for the employers who contribute to the plan, but also for the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PBGC) and for participants and retires. Joining the WPI to examine the implications of the rejection of Central State’s plan was Littler shareholder Mike Congiu.
If you haven’t filed your taxes or think you may have made a mistake because you didn’t understand the tax code or foreign earned income credits, contact Morey’s office, Glazier Financial today. They will look over your past 3 Federal returns and supply you with an analysis to help you plan for your financial future. In addition, they will make certain you have the necessary tax forms filed. As a US citizen, you have a tax liability for life, no matter where you choose to do business or reside. Key Takeaways: [1:14] Morey shares important information for expats [2:55] Teaching CPAs and attorneys in the pension administration business [3:33] Determine why you are going offshore [4:14] Some expats don’t even file tax returns [5:44] Hidden tax implications in US non-tax related bills [6:57] Foreign countries want your tax money too [7:45] The IRS looks at the variances in tax returns [9:32] A computer may not pick up the same things a tax planner does [10:29] Foreign income could be considered Subpart F Income [11:34] The Employee Retirement Income Security Act [13:36] Foreign tax credits - Which IRS forms to use [16:10] “We don’t disclose” is a thing of the past [17:20] The Federal Government is expanding what they consider to be a financial institution [18:14] Do it right the first time [19:16] Understand the taxes in your foreign country and your tax liability in the US [20:52] Plan before you move or invest internationally Mentions: Glazer Financial Network macarenarose@gmail.com Tuesdays with Morey on Facebook
On January 25, 2016, the Supreme Court decided Amgen Inc v. Harris without oral argument. Former employees of an Amgen subsidiary had participated in a benefit plan that offered ownership of Amgen stock. When the value of Amgen stock fell in 2007, stockholders filed a class action against plan fiduciaries alleging a breach of fiduciary duties, including the duty of prudence, under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. Although the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit initially reversed a district court decision dismissing the class action complaint, the U.S. Supreme Court then vacated the Ninth Circuit’s judgment and remanded the case in light of the Supreme Court’s then-recent decision Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer, which set forth the standards for stating a claim for breach of the duty of prudence against fiduciaries who manage employee stock ownership plans. -- On remand, the Ninth Circuit reiterated its conclusion that the plaintiffs’ complaint stated a claim for breach of fiduciary duty, and the Supreme Court again granted certiorari. In a per curiam opinion the Court reversed the judgment of the Ninth Circuit by a vote of 9-0, holding that the Circuit had failed to properly evaluate the complaint. In its current form, the Supreme Court concluded, the complaint failed to state a claim for breach of the duty of prudence. In remanding the case, however, the Court indicated that the district court could decide in the first instance whether the stockholders might amend their complaint in order to adequately plead a claim for breach of the duty of prudence. -- To discuss the case, we have George T. Conway III, who is Partner, Litigation at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz.
In the beginning, Congress supported the interest of Insurance Policyholders through ERSIA Legislation. The Department of Labor (which helps oversee enforcement) defines ERISA Legislation as, "The Employee Retirement Income Security Act or ERISA is a Federal law that sets standards of protection for individuals in most voluntarily established, private-sector retirement plans." This includes benefits such as Short-Term and Long-Term Disability and Life Insurance Plans. Having trouble getting your benefits from Employer or Insurance Companies after twenty-four months? In my opinion, too many insured claims are thrown under the bus after two years. How much is your Insurance Plan worth in times of hardships? Join Talking About You with ESTRA every Monday for information which protects Insurance Policyholders who are everyday citizens.
In the beginning, Congress supported the interest of Insurance Policyholders through ERSIA Legislation. The Department of Labor (which helps oversee enforcement) defines ERISA Legislation as, "The Employee Retirement Income Security Act or ERISA is a Federal law that sets standards of protection for individuals in most voluntarily established, private-sector retirement plans." This includes benefits such as Short-Term and Long-Term Disability and Life Insurance Plans. Having trouble getting your benefits from Employer or Insurance Companies after twenty-four months? In my opinion, too many insured claims are thrown under the bus after two years. How much is your Insurance Plan worth in times of hardships? Join Talking About You with ESTRA every Monday for information which protects Insurance Policyholders who are everyday citizens.
A case in which the Court held that a trustee of an employee stock ownership plan is subject to the same duty of prudence as the trustee of a Employee Retirement Income Security Act.
Jeff Knapp and Robert Johnston, attorneys from both sides on ERISA cases explain what it is and why we need to know about the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
