Jackson Lewis P.C. • May 23, 2016
Sponsors of preapproved defined contribution retirement plans were generally required to sign new plan documents on or before April 30, 2016 that incorporated changes required by the Pension Protection Act of 2006 (PPA). Defined contribution plans include profit sharing plans, 401(k) plans, and money purchase pension plans. Preapproved plans are plan documents that have been approved by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and are sold to plan sponsors through law firms, banks, brokers and other financial institutions.
Jackson Lewis P.C. • May 22, 2016
In a case of first impression, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held that work performed by a non-union company acquired after a construction industry employer ceased contributing to a multiemployer pension plan (MEP) triggered withdrawal liability. The case, Ceco Concrete Construction, LLC v. Centennial State Carpenters Pension Trust, Nos. 15-1021, 15-1190 (10th Cir. May 3, 2016), should be paid close heed by unionized construction companies.
Jackson Lewis P.C. • May 19, 2016
In the aftermath of the rejection of the Central States Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Plan (“Central States”) application to reduce core benefits by Treasury Special Master Kenneth Feinberg, it is critical that contributing employers to multi-employer pension funds recognize the harsh reality that help to those funds will not be forthcoming from the government in at least the near term.
Franczek Radelet P.C • May 19, 2016
The United States Supreme Court has declined to rule on the merits in a case brought by religious non-profit entities challenging the “religious accommodations” to the contraception mandate under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). In Zubik v. Burwell, the Court issued a per curiam (unanimous) opinion remanding the case back to lower courts, while also vacating the prior judgments issued by those courts.
The Supreme Court will not resolve a contentious case involving the Affordable Care Act's (ACA's) contraceptive coverage requirement. Instead, it issued a unanimous ruling that sends Zubik v. Burwell back to the lower courts without any broad pronouncement.
Ogletree Deakins • May 17, 2016
Regardless of one’s preferred metaphor, the Supreme Court of the United States is adept at ducking, punting, and otherwise avoiding messy and socially divisive interpretive issues. Every once in a while, the parties even help the Court out. Facing the prospect of another evenly divided 4-4 decision on the controversial intersection between the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) contraceptive care mandate and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA)— and after having administered some friendly arm-twisting to the parties following oral argument back in March—the Court found just such an exit strategy in Zubik v. Burwell.
Jackson Lewis P.C. • May 15, 2016
On May 12, 2016, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia issued an opinion in U.S. House of Representatives v. Burwell et al., No. 14-1967 (D.D.C. May 12, 2016), enjoining the federal government’s use of unappropriated monies to fund reimbursements to health insurers under Section 1402 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (the “ACA”). Section 1402 of the ACA provides cost-sharing reductions (e.g., reductions in deductibles, coinsurance and copayments) to certain people who obtain health insurance through the government exchanges. Section 1402 also provides that the insurer is supposed to be reimbursed by the government for the cost-sharing reductions it gave to those people.
Franczek Radelet P.C • May 10, 2016
Treasury Department Rejects Central States Pension Fund's Benefit Reduction Proposal
Jackson Lewis P.C. • May 03, 2016
For the past several months, we have been reporting on the application filed by the Central States Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund (“Central States”) to the Department of Treasury to reduce “core” benefits to participants. This extraordinary remedy is permitted by the Kline-Miller Multiemployer Pension Reform Act of 2014 (“Kline-Miller Act”).
Fisher & Phillips LLP • May 03, 2016
Those in the heavily regulated healthcare industry know that patient information is sacrosanct. And for good reason; improper handling can result in hefty fines or criminal prosecution under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). Healthcare employers must often take intricate steps to safeguard Protected Health Information (PHI), including ensuring compliance by the workforce.