Legal Risk Management Tips

ERISA 408(b)(2) Disclosures: Are You Ready?

Placeholder

BACKGROUND

In 2007, the Department of Labor ("DOL") released proposed regulations to help workers and retirement plan sponsors of ERISA-covered plans to understand the cost of services the plan receives. The goal was to improve the transparency of the fees that are charged to the plan and highlight the conflicts of interest that may arise due to certain arrangements between the covered service1 provider and a third party2. Today the DOL is achieving these goals by requiring covered service providers to disclose certain facts to plan sponsors with respect to their compensation. An interim final regulation was proposed in July 2010 and was finalized on February 3, 2012. The deadline for a covered service provider to make their initial disclosures to the plan sponsor is July 1, 2012.

The covered plans subject to the disclosure requirements include employee pension plans, 401(k) plans and traditional defined benefit pensions. However, IRAs, SIMPLE retirement accounts, Simplified Employee Pensions and certain 403(b) arrangements are excluded from the regulation and its disclosure requirements.3

The spirit of the disclosure requirements under the regulation is to assist the plan participants in understanding the hidden fees and conflicts of interest that are present in their investments. While plan participants are more than likely aware of the direct costs to the plan, they may not be as knowledgeable about the "indirect compensation" a covered service provider may receive. "Compensation" as defined in the regulation is anything of monetary value (for example money, gifts, awards and trips) but does not include non-monetary compensation valued at $250 or less (in the aggregate) during the term of the contract or arrangement. Several commentators to the interim rule argued that the $250 threshold for non-monetary compensation should be revised and measured on a calendar or plan-year basis, but the DOL declined to accept this suggestion.

COMPENSATION DISCLOSURES

As it stands, the definition of compensation seems to include research seminars and subsidies for such seminars including meals and travel. As the regulation is currently written it appears that any non-monetary compensation a covered service provider receives will be aggregated for the entire relationship and must be disclosed if the sum exceeds $250. However, there continues to be debate among industry professionals as to what actually needs to be disclosed as indirect compensation and how much detail is required. While some argue for more specific and customized disclosures, others maintain that the customizations should be not be so specific that they must be revised annually. Whatever the covered service provider decides, the analysis of the sufficiency of the disclosures should be based on a practical interpretation as to whether a plan sponsor can truly understand the various forms of compensation a covered service provider may receive.

PROHIBITED TRANSACTION CONSIDERATIONS

ERISA generally prohibits the furnishing of services between a plan and party in interest and the transfer of any plan assets unless an exemption applies. A party in interest is an individual who provides services to a plan. For example, a registered investment adviser ("RIA") providing services to an ERISA plan is a party in interest. Thus, without an exemption the plan cannot employ the RIA or use plan assets to pay their fees. In addition, a prohibited transaction may be subject to an excise tax and rescission.

Prior to the new regulation, the exemption under 408(b)(2) was not difficult to satisfy. It provided a general safe harbor that states that contracts with a party in interest for "services necessary for the establishment of the plan" are permitted so long as no more than "reasonable compensation" is paid. The new regulation has defined what disclosures are required to allow a plan fiduciary to determine whether the compensation is "reasonable." Failure to provide those disclosures by the deadline of July 1, 2012 will not satisfy the requirements of the exemption and therefore will subject the arrangement to be classified as a prohibited transaction, unless an alternative exemption can be relied on.

THE WRITTEN DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

A covered service provider must furnish a written statement to the plan fiduciary of the direct and indirect compensation. Direct compensation is any compensation that is received from the plan or where the plan reimburses the plan sponsor. Indirect compensation is any compensation received from a source other than the plan, plan sponsor, the covered service provider, an affiliate or a subcontractor of the covered service provider. A recipient of indirect compensation must also provide a description of the arrangement with the payer sufficient to allow a plan sponsor to determine if the compensation is reasonable.

While direct compensation disclosures attempt to highlight the cost of the services to the plan, the indirect compensation disclosures are intended to highlight the conflicts of interest of the covered service provider. Compensation may be expressed in any method that would be reasonable to allow the plan fiduciary to evaluate the reasonableness of the compensation. That may be in a dollar amount, formula, tiered schedule based on Assets Under Management etc.

FORM, TIMING & CURING DISCLOSURE FAILURES

All the disclosures are not required to be in a single document. However, the DOL has suggested providing a summary of where a plan fiduciary can find all the required disclosures to determine whether the compensation received is reasonable and therefore qualifies as an exemption to ERISAs prohibited transaction rules. The DOL provided a sample guide of the summary and has hinted that in the future they may require a sample guide as well.

Notably, disclosures must be made "reasonably in advance" on entering into, renewing or extending the contract for services. The effective date for providing the disclosures "reasonably in advance" will be July 1, 2012. If a covered service provider acts in good faith then they will not lose their exemption if an error or omission is found. However, the covered service provider must disclose the error or omission within 30 days of knowing of the failure. As long as covered service providers act in good faith and diligently take corrective steps when they discover an error or omission or upon request by the plan fiduciary, the exemption provided under 408(b)(2) will continue to allow for necessary services to the plan.

Finally, if a plan fiduciary discovers an error or omission the fiduciary must request in writing that the covered service provider correct disclosure information. When a covered service provider receives such a request from a plan fiduciary they have 90 days to supply the necessary disclosures or the plan fiduciary will be required to notify the DOL.

JLG works extensively with investment advisers, broker-dealers, investment companies, hedge funds, private equity firms, banks and financial professionals on securities and corporate law regulatory matters.

This article is for information purposes and does not contain or convey legal advice. The information herein should not be relied upon in regard to any particular facts or circumstances without first consulting with a lawyer.


1A "covered service provider" is a service provider that enters into a contract or arrangement with the covered plan and reasonably expects $1,000 or more in compensation, direct or indirect, to be received in connection with providing one or more services (29 CFR 2550.408b-2 (c)(1)(iii))

2 An example of a third party is a financial institution that subsidizes the cost of attendance at a conference that a covered service provider offered for its clients. Id.

3 29 CFR 2550.408b-2 (c)(1)(ii)

About the author

Jacko Law Group provides tailored legal services and effective strategies for success, delivering exemplary solutions to complex legal and regulatory challenges to ensure that both business efforts and compliance obligations are satisfied.

Related Insights

Posted on Google Google
Alan Markfeld profile picture
Alan Markfeld
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google.
Dharmi is an excellent securities lawyer who understands the law as it pertains to these cases. She is extremely proactive and represents her clients well. I highly recommend Jacko and Dharmi.
Posted on Google Google
Danielle Martin profile picture
Danielle Martin
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google.
I’ve had the privilege of working closely with this firm in my role as Chief Compliance Officer and I can confidently say they are an exceptional compliance partner. Their depth of experience is immediately evidentand they bring a level of practical knowledge. What I truly enjoy is their ability to translate complex regulatory requirements into plain English, often using real, everyday examples that make implementation far more manageable. They are also incredibly responsive and reliable. In a field where timing matters, their prompt communication and thoughtful guidance have been invaluable. If you’re looking for a compliance attorney who combines expertise, clarity, and professionalism, I highly recommend them.
Posted on Google Google
Curt Rocca profile picture
Curt Rocca
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google.
Michelle and the team at Jacko Law Group have helped guide through a variety of critical circumstances as we ventured through the uncharted and unfamiliar territory of becoming and successfully operating as an RIA. I have particularly appreciated Michelle's personal involvement and genuine caring about us and our organization. She has been responsive and her counsel has been consistently on-point and helpful. She artfully guided us through our initial filing process and first SEC exam process - which went very well. Very grateful to Michelle and her team.
Posted on Google Google
Nicholas Di Paolo profile picture
Nicholas Di Paolo
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google.
Michelle and her team were excellent to work with, front to back. They helped me to understand the challenges ahead and were always proactive in their consultation through every step of my transition. JLG truly know the wealth management industry very well and did a great job of understanding the challenges unique to my business. Without them, I can confidently say I would not have felt as comfortable through the transition as I did. Fortunately, that's not something that stops there - Michelle and her team have kept in touch to ensure that I'm on top of certain administrative issues, trends, and simply showing me that they care about my business and success. I look forward to continuing to work with them for many years to come.
Posted on Google Google
Margery Neis profile picture
Margery Neis
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google.
Dharmi Mehta was extremely helpful when my business partner and I transitioned to a new RIA firm. She and her staff were all very professional. Her guidance during our transition was invaluable. I highly recommend Dharmi and Jacko Law Group.
Posted on Google Google
Joseph Burwell profile picture
Joseph Burwell
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google.
Dharmi and Amandeep were a delight to work with. They assisted me with a claim and stuck with me the entire way through. Dharmi's advice was invaluable, and I was most impressed by her clear and professional communication. From beginning-to-end, both Dharmi and Amandeep kept me well informed. Their entire team are proud of their work and rightfully so. Thank you!
Posted on Google Google
Faruk Jaffer profile picture
Faruk Jaffer
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google.
My mentor once told me that a good attorney is worth their weight in gold — and that couldn't be more true of Michelle and Amanda. Their expertise, professionalism, and responsiveness were top notch every step of the way. It's rare to find legal partners who are not only sharp and thorough, but also genuinely invested in your success. I’m grateful for their guidance and highly recommend them to anyone seeking trusted legal counsel.
Posted on Google Google
everistus etafo profile picture
everistus etafo
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google.
It is my great Privilege to share my Review of what Atty Dharmi Mehta of Jacko Law Group did for me and by extension for my family. From the first time complimentary conversation we had having spoken to several other Lawyers ,l knew she was the right person for the Job .Because of her background as a former RR ,she was professional,kind, Empathetic,listened and was focused on fighting for me. From a potential of been terminated with cause ,l was able to walk away with a clean U5 with a validation that l did nothing wrong except what was in the best Interest of my clients. I hope nobody ever has to go through what l have Experienced, but if you do ,you want Dharmi Mehta beside you .Rest assured your service Deserve 10 stars but this forum only allows 5. Me and my family are forever grateful and will make sure that any RR who needs an advocate will know about you . Everistus Etafo
Posted on Google Google
Karen Althaus profile picture
Karen Althaus
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google.
I have worked with Jacko Law Group for 2 different business situations that necessitated an attorney. In both cases, the team was very thorough & competent. Their attention to our situation and the extra effort they put into our case(s) was very much appreciated. I would highly recommend Jacko Law Group!