Retirement Practice Legal Consulting & Compliance Quarterly Update

Transcription

1 Retirement Practice Legal Consulting & Compliance Quarterly Update Notes from the Editor By Jennifer Ross Berrian We are very excited about the current issue of the Retirement Legal Consulting & Compliance Quarterly Update. There are contributions from two guest authors this month. Rick Jones, the leader of Aon Hewitt s National Retirement Practices Group, has contributed an opinion piece about the future of retirement plans. Chris Birch, a senior actuary who is leading our efforts in assisting clients with pension de-risking, has authored an article about lump-sum window programs. These brief articles are in addition to the contributions of members of the Retirement Legal Consulting & Compliance Group on the following topics: a Section 409A compliance project initiated by the IRS; the tax treatment of captive insurance companies funding employee benefits; an update on the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA); and updates on three important recent federal court benefit decisions. For the last year, we have been focused on the impact of the U.S. Supreme Court s U.S. v. Windsor decision declaring Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional. In our experience, most plan sponsors have responded to the law changes. Keep in mind that calendar year retirement plans may need to be amended by December 31, 2014, to change the definition of spouse as necessary and to clarify effective dates. Most recently, and no surprise, there have been several lawsuits filed for retroactive benefits for same-sex spouses that we will be following. In addition, the Department of Labor has issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to change the definition of spouse for purposes of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) to track the definition used for the Internal Revenue Code (to no longer require that the employee reside in a state that recognizes the marriage to be eligible for FMLA leave). In this Edition Retirement Plans of the Future: What Do Our Representatives in Washington Think? IRS Initiates 409A Compliance Project: A Word to the Wise Lump-Sum Windows: A Strategy to De-Risk Pension Plans New Benefit Strategy Involving Captive Insurers FATCA Transition Relief Issued Recent Case Law Developments If you have any questions or need any assistance with the topics raised, please contact the author of the article or Tom Meagher, our practice leader. Retirement Plans of the Future: What Do Our Representatives in Washington Think? By Rick Jones As the head of the National Practices Group for Aon Hewitt s Retirement Consulting business, I am fortunate to lead and spend time with our Retirement Legal Consulting & Compliance practice. I also spend a fair amount of time representing the practice and firm in Washington, D.C. A number of issues regarding tax-qualified retirement plans continue to surface in Washington that require solutions and (Continued on page 2) Retirement Practice Legal Consulting & Compliance Quarterly Update 1

2 (Continued from page 1) improvements. Given the current political dynamics, we cannot likely anticipate changes any time soon, but we do see four main areas of concern which offer a glimpse into tax-qualified plan design options and requirements in the future. Lifetime Income: We are all generally aware of the trend to move away from defined benefit plan coverage. The Department of Labor (DOL) estimates that 27.2 million American workers were earning benefits in defined benefit plans in 1975, while 16.5 million were earning benefits in This shift has brought about a movement away from lifetime income for many of those individuals. This is an area of concern among lawmakers, as individuals are now more often responsible for both investment and longevity risks in their retirement planning. Look for the designs of the future to require or more strongly encourage lifetime income payments. For example, the Treasury Department just approved final regulations permitting longevity annuities to be paid from defined contribution and certain other employer plans. Plan Sponsorship Requirements: Effectively maintaining an employer-sponsored, tax-qualified retirement plan is no trivial exercise. The rules and regulations are significant and require lots of time, talent and money to ensure good outcomes for employees and to avoid compliance risks and failures. I believe the good news is that our lawmakers are increasingly realizing how challenging the current system is, and are receptive to ideas to greatly simplify and streamline the employer s role and responsibility. Plan Coverage and Leakage: Many U.S. workers are not eligible for an employer-sponsored plan. In addition, many eligible workers make choices which produce significant leakage of dollars from the retirement system. Both of these issues are well noted in Washington and will most likely be part of any reforms of the system. Federal Tax Revenue and Exclusions: Another well-known concern is the amount of foregone and deferred federal income tax revenue associated with the current retirement system. There are questions as to whether the tax exclusions and deferrals ultimately end up in the right paychecks and pockets. Various proposals exist to address these concerns. Look for some recognition of this in the next major tax reform, if not before. While anything can happen when politics are involved, I believe there is some alignment around the current issues which will result in fundamental changes to the tax-qualified retirement system. Aon Hewitt has thoughts on effective concepts for our collective futures. As we discuss these issues in Washington, we welcome our clients input and reactions. Please reach out to me or your local Aon Hewitt Retirement consultant if you would like to discuss these future designs further. IRS Initiates 409A Compliance Project: A Word to the Wise By Ron Gerard In early May, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) announced a compliance initiative project (CIP) to examine the extent to which certain technical requirements involving nonqualified deferred compensation plans under Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code have presented challenges for plan sponsors. The project focuses on three issues that account for a significant portion of 409A plan document or operational failures that may result in significant tax costs to plan participants: Initial deferral elections Changes in initial deferral elections and subsequent deferral elections Payouts, including the six-month delay for specified employees There is no plan-level sanction for 409A violations, unlike that which exists for defects relating to qualified plan operations. Instead, it is the participant in the plan who suffers the financial consequences of 409A failures. The goal of the CIP is to attempt to determine the interaction between an employer s plan-related compliance failures and satisfaction of individual tax reporting requirements by participants affected by those failures. No employer likes an IRS audit, especially when it might uncover potential adverse tax consequences for executives or former executives. And once an IRS audit is undertaken, certain voluntary correction mechanisms that could otherwise mitigate the impact of operational failures are no longer available. Should employers be worried? In the short run, the answer is likely to be no. The CIP universe will be limited to fewer than 50 large taxpayers who have previously been identified for employment tax audits and are likely to maintain nonqualified deferred compensation plans. Once the IRS selects the employers for audit, the CIP will limit its inquiry to deferral elections and plan payouts for the top 10 highly compensated individuals and will not look beyond that group. Therefore, the odds of a particular participant becoming the focus of a 409A audit are extremely (Continued on page 3) Retirement Practice Legal Consulting & Compliance Quarterly Update 2

3 (Continued from page 2) low. Even then, if deferral elections and plan payouts for the years under examination followed the 409A rules, the individual tax return side will be unaffected. As you might imagine, however, the IRS may expand the program if it identifies a sustained level of compliance failures that are not being picked up by its current audit techniques. The CIP is a good reminder for employers to periodically review plan operations; and, if necessary, to take advantage of the available IRS correction programs in IRS Notices (operational failures) and (plan document failures). As indicated above, it is important to do this before an IRS audit compromises the ability to make those corrections. What should employers do now? Many of the rules pertaining to deferral elections and payouts are unique to nonqualified plans and are different than they were prior to the enactment of 409A. Our Retirement Legal Consulting & Compliance specialists can review your plan documents and practices and walk you through the requirements for handling any necessary corrections. An inventory of plan procedures and documentation requirements is an advisable long-term strategy to avoid the after-the-fact effects of grossing up an individual s tax liability if 409A violations are found (while tax gross-ups are not required, many employers choose to provide them). Even if there is a negligible chance of being swept up in the CIP, there is something to that old idiom about an ounce of prevention being worth a pound of cure. Lump-Sum Windows: A Strategy to De-Risk Pension Plans By Chris Birch Providing a guaranteed retirement benefit to employees through a defined benefit pension plan can be financially risky for employers. As investments change in value, interest rates fluctuate, new mortality tables are introduced and Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) premiums increase, a plan s funded status can become quite volatile. One strategy many employers use to mitigate these financial risks is to amend the pension plan to offer terminated, vested participants an immediate lump sum cash payment through an interim or window program. In lump-sum windows, for a limited period of time, employers will permit participants to elect to receive an immediate lump sum payment of their vested pension benefit in lieu of future annuity payments. Note: The plan is required to also offer an immediate annuity and any other benefit options for which the participant is eligible under the plan s terms. Some employers have also offered lump-sum windows to participants who are currently receiving pension annuity payments; however, the most common strategy focuses on terminated, vested participants. What should employers consider? Many factors come into play when an employer considers whether to move forward with a lump-sum window. Factors can range from plan financials and the economic environment to plan administration and data readiness. Mid-way through 2014, two considerations in particular are piquing the interest of employers. First, once a participant receives a lump-sum payment, the plan no longer pays PBGC premiums for the participant. Based on the recent increases in PBGC premiums, the present value of flat rate premiums is approximately $1,500 per terminated, vested participant. Second, Internal Revenue Service (IRS) mandated mortality tables for lump sums have been released Beyond 2015, the mortality tables may change which could lead to a 5-12% increase in the lump-sum payment amount. through Beyond 2015, the mortality tables may change to indicate longer life expectancies which could lead to a 5-12% increase in the lump sum payment amount. What s in it for participants? While there are several compelling reasons for employers to offer lump sum cash payments through a lump-sum window, there are also benefits for participants. The lump sum offer is voluntary, so participants are able to choose the best option for their own situations. One available option is to roll the lump sum over to an IRA or 401(k) plan tax-free, allowing participants to consolidate and manage their retirement savings in whole. How can Aon Hewitt help? Aon Hewitt has worked with hundreds of employers as they evaluate possible approaches to settle pension liabilities. Once an employer decides to offer a lump-sum window, Aon Hewitt can assist the appropriate plan fiduciary to implement it through our flexible delivery model that can accommodate a variety of approaches. Our available consulting and administrative services are multi-faceted and are intended to address a number of important considerations including: (Continued on page 4) Retirement Practice Legal Consulting & Compliance Quarterly Update 3

4 (Continued from page 3) Creating the proper design to produce the desired results Developing an understanding of the potential financial impact of a lump-sum window on the plan s funded status and financial statements Preparing plan participants for a positive experience Completing accurate calculations and preparing required disclosures to participants during a period of high volume activity Executing the program in compliance with all applicable laws, requirements and regulations Providing investment support, as necessary, to ensure the appropriate liquidity and investment planning to support the lump-sum window event Lump-sum windows are significant projects with major rewards for employers and participants that involve a wide variety of considerations. If you are interested in learning more about lump-sum windows, please contact your Aon Hewitt consultant. insurance company. Under the accident and health insurance contract, quarterly reimbursements were issued by the insurer to the VEBA for medical claims incurred by retirees and paid by the VEBA. The insurer also entered into a reinsurance contract with the employer s wholly owned captive insurance company. The primary issue in the revenue ruling related to whether the reinsurance of the retiree medical plan risk by the insurance company to the employer s captive insurance company provided sufficient risk-shifting to constitute insurance. In this instance, the IRS concluded that: The risks shifted were those of the covered retirees (who may lose coverage if the employer terminates the retiree health plan); The reinsurance contract constituted insurance; and The captive insurance company was an insurance company for federal income tax purposes. Aon Hewitt has performed a number of feasibility analyses and assessments on behalf of clients considering this type of arrangement. Our experts are ready and available to help interested clients examining such captive-funding arrangements. New Benefit Strategy Involving Captive Insurers By Tom Meagher FATCA Transition Relief Issued By Elizabeth Groenewegen and Meghan Lynch During the last several years, many employers have used captive insurance companies to improve the funding efficiency of employee benefit programs. Tax guidance has continued to attract attention to these scenarios. IRS Revenue Ruling was recently issued, clarifying the tax treatment of the insurance companies. Specifically, the new ruling addresses the tax treatment of captive insurance companies that reinsure post-retirement health obligations. In the revenue ruling, an employer was providing a health benefit program to retired employees and their dependents that could be terminated at any time by the employer. The employer also maintained a voluntary employees beneficiary association (VEBA) to provide retiree health coverage. As part of the employer s proposed captivefunding arrangement, the VEBA entered into a non-cancellable accident and health insurance policy with a third-party The Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) was enacted in 2010 to combat federal income tax evasion by U.S. taxpayers through the use of accounts at foreign financial institutions. The intent is to ensure U.S. taxpayers report their non-u.s. financial accounts and related investment income/ capital gains to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). While compliance dates have been fast approaching, on May 2, 2014, the IRS issued Notice which granted certain transition relief to plan sponsors under FATCA. Notice provides, among other things, that calendar years 2014 and 2015 will be regarded as a transition period for purposes of IRS enforcement and administration under the following provisions of FATCA, to the extent that these rules were modified by FATCA s temporary coordination regulations that became effective March 6, 2014: (Continued on page 5) Retirement Practice Legal Consulting & Compliance Quarterly Update 4

5 (Continued from page 4) Chapter 4 (due diligence, reporting and withholding provisions) Chapter 3 (non-resident alien withholding and reporting) Chapter 61 (domestic reporting) Section 3406 (backup withholding) However, Notice requires that, in order to enjoy this transition relief, a good faith effort to comply with the requirements of Chapter 4 and the corresponding regulations is required. What does this mean for plan sponsors FATCA compliance strategies? To demonstrate a good faith effort, companies offering non-u.s. long-term benefit programs should complete a FATCA compliance analysis and should document their exempt status To demonstrate a good faith effort, companies offering non -U.S. long-term benefit programs should complete a FATCA compliance analysis and should document their exempt status (if applicable). If the program is found to be not exempt, it may need to register with the IRS. The initial registration period opened on May 5, While registration remains open, later registrants may not be included on the IRS initial compliance list(s). The IRS recently issued guidance enabling entities to complete their FATCA analysis and document the results. In particular, the IRS Form W-8BEN-E instructions were published and will assist entities in the required documentation of their FATCA status. From a planning standpoint during the transition period, the plan sponsor s compliance strategy and program documentation, including IRS Forms W-8BEN-E, should be developed and be producible upon request to demonstrate good faith compliance with FATCA. Aon Hewitt s U.S. and international FATCA teams can assist in assessing your compliance requirements, developing possible strategies, and addressing any FATCA related questions or concerns that may arise. Our summary on this topic can be found here. Recent Case Law Developments By Hitz Burton, John Van Duzer and Jennifer Ross Berrian ESOP Fiduciaries Lose Presumption of Prudence Fiduciaries directing investments in employee stock ownership plans (ESOPs) will have to be more vigilant after the U.S. Supreme Court s recent decision in Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer. On June 25, 2014, a unanimous Supreme Court decided that actions by fiduciaries to direct investments by an ESOP in employer securities of the plan sponsor are not entitled to a presumption of prudence as previously held by various federal courts of appeals and district court decisions. This decision also covers ESOPs that exist as an employer stock fund within a 401(k) plan. Other than the statutory exemption that ESOP s enjoy from diversification, the same standard of prudence applies to ESOPs as applies to all other ERISA plans. The Court s decision strikes down the standard developed in such cases as Moench v. Robertson almost 20 years ago. Under the Moench presumption, investment in employer securities by an ESOP was presumed to be prudent, absent allegations that clearly implicate the company s financial viability as an ongoing business enterprise. While the Dudenhoeffer decision may be helpful to ESOP participants in that it eliminates the presumption of prudence, it also provides some protections for fiduciaries of public company ESOPs accused of failing to act prudently based on public or nonpublic information. Publicly available information: Following Dudenhoeffer, allegations that fiduciaries should have acted on publicly available information alone in determining whether employer stock was over- or undervalued are generally implausible because efficient market principles should ensure that the share price of employer stock typically reflects all publicly available information. Plaintiffs would have to show special circumstances that would make reliance by the fiduciary on the employer stock s market valuation alone imprudent. Material, nonpublic information: Fiduciaries will not generally be liable for failing to act on the basis of material, (Continued on page 6) Retirement Practice Legal Consulting & Compliance Quarterly Update 5

6 (Continued from page 5) nonpublic information where doing so would cause the fiduciary to violate federal securities laws (e.g., insider trading laws) unless the participant can plausibly demonstrate both: That the fiduciary could make a disclosure (e.g., announcement from sponsor to participants that planned future allocations of employer securities in the ESOP will be stopped effective immediately) without violating federal securities law; and That doing so would be more likely to help rather than hurt the employer stock fund. What Happens Now? As with most new standards, the Supreme Court is leaving most of the development of the new standard to future federal case law. As a result, many questions are left unanswered. Beyond the issues described above regarding public and nonpublic information, the pleading standards required for plaintiffs to adequately plead a claim will need to be addressed by the lower federal courts as plaintiffs and plan sponsors navigate the new economics and risk management associated with stock-drop litigation for ESOPs post-dudenhoeffer. Additionally, plan sponsors should evaluate if the appointment of an independent, third-party fiduciary or financial analyst will help insulate the sponsor and fiduciaries from actual or threatened claims. Finally, public company sponsors should consider taking formal steps to insulate their ERISA fiduciaries from material, nonpublic information. For example, sponsors may wish to formally establish that named executive officers and senior vice presidents are prohibited from participating as a member of an investment or administrative committee with supervisory authority over a tax-qualified retirement plan if that plan includes an ESOP. As anticipated, Dudenhoeffer s impact is already evident. On July 1, the Supreme Court vacated a 2013 Second Circuit of Appeals decision on whether participant claims of imprudent investment of an ESOP subaccount within the Lehman Brothers 401(k) plan could be based on material, nonpublic information. The case was returned to the Second Circuit for further consideration in light of the Dudenhoeffer decision. Fifth Circuit Court Limits Application of Firestone Doctrine In a recent unpublished decision (Futral v. Chastant), the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals was faced with a familiar issue. A plan trustee made a decision in its fiduciary capacity to pay certain legal expenses from plan assets. The plaintiff disagreed with this use of plan assets and filed a lawsuit in court, arguing that the trustee had breached its fiduciary duty by using plan assets in this manner. Standard of Review: The Futral case serves as a reminder to carefully consider the payment of specific expenses with plan assets, and even more importantly, illustrates the importance of judicial review standards. Plan documents granted the trustee discretionary authority to make certain fiduciary decisions. Therefore, the trustee argued that the court should apply deferential judicial review in determining whether the trustee had committed a breach of fiduciary duty. Under this standard, the court would give deference to the actions of the trustee and would determine it a fiduciary breach only if the actions were arbitrary or capricious, or if an abuse of discretion occurred. The plaintiff, on the other hand, argued that de novo judicial review should be applied. Under the de novo standard, there is no presumption of correctness and the court will take a fresh look at the plaintiff's claim of fiduciary breach of duty. It is much more difficult for a participant to win a lawsuit against a plan if a deferential standard of review is applied. Firestone Case: Many plan documents and summary plan descriptions (SPDs) contain Firestone language, granting plan fiduciaries the discretionary authority to interpret and administer the plan. Lawyers have been including this type of language in plan documents for many years due to the Firestone v. Bruch decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in The Firestone decision generally held that when plan documents include this type of language, and a lawsuit is initiated, the fiduciary will benefit from the exercise of deferential judicial review. Over the years, various questions have arisen over how broadly to apply the Firestone ruling. Although the Futral court concluded that no fiduciary breach had occurred, the court also explained in a footnote that the Firestone doctrine only applies in the context of a fiduciary who denies a participant's claim for benefit, and not in the context of breach of fiduciary duty. This is a very significant limitation of the Firestone decision. Split in Circuits: The Fifth Circuit now joins the Second Circuit with this limited interpretation of the Firestone holding (although the opinion is unpublished and is therefore of limited precedential value). However, courts in the Third, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth and Ninth Circuits have interpreted the Firestone holding to apply more broadly to claims for fiduciary breach. Because of this split among circuit courts, the U.S. Supreme Court may eventually agree to take on a case and resolve the issue. (Continued on page 7) Retirement Practice Legal Consulting & Compliance Quarterly Update 6

7 (Continued from page 6) Suggestion: Plan sponsors and administrators should review their plan documents and SPDs to be sure that the advisable Firestone language is included. In addition, decisions to pay expenses using plan assets should be carefully considered and the decision process thoroughly documented. Aon Hewitt can assist with reviewing and amending plan documentation to ensure maximum protection for fiduciaries, and can help establish a process for determining and documenting whether specific expenses are appropriately paid from plan assets. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Limits Equitable Remedies in ERISA Cases A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals limited the reach of the equitable relief doctrines in ERISA lawsuits that many believed were expanded by the U.S. Supreme Court s decision in CIGNA Corp. v. Amara. While the Supreme Court expanded equitable relief remedies in Amara to include some forms of monetary relief, the Ninth Circuit Court, in the case of Gabriel v. Alaska Electrical Fund, viewed Amara much more narrowly in addressing factual scenarios in which such monetary relief may be available. In Gabriel, contributions were made to a multiemployer plan on behalf of the plaintiff during a three-year period in which he was not eligible to participate in the plan. After deleting these three years from the plaintiff s participation history, he was not vested in the plan nor was he eligible for any benefit in relation to his prior participation in the plan. The plan caught the error and refunded the contributions that were improperly made on the plaintiff s behalf; the plaintiff signed a release acknowledging that he was receiving a refund of improperly paid contributions. Eighteen years later, the plaintiff requested an estimate of the amount of benefits due to him under the plan and received a benefit estimate. It can be assumed from the fact that the plaintiff received a benefit estimate that the multiemployer plan s administrative records were not properly updated to delete the three years of improperly credited vesting service. The plan paid a monthly benefit to the plaintiff for a few years and then terminated the payments. After exhausting the plan s claims procedure, the plaintiff filed an action in district court requesting equitable relief in order to continue receiving benefit payments from the plan. The District Court granted the defendant s motion to dismiss on all of the plaintiff s claims. In upholding the dismissal, the Court of Appeals held that the plaintiff did not qualify for any of the three forms of equitable relief available under ERISA and case law: surcharge; reformation; or equitable estoppel. The Court made the following rulings: Surcharge. According to the Court, the equitable remedy of surcharge (granting equitable relief in the form of monetary compensation) is only available when a breach of trust by a plan fiduciary results in a loss to the pension trust or allows a fiduciary to profit at the expense of the trust. The opinion interprets the Amara ruling on surcharge as limited to traditional equitable remedies, holding that surcharge is not available if there is no loss to the pension trust. Reformation. Reformation of the terms of the plan is only available to remedy false or misleading information caused by mistake or fraud. Because the plan was clear about what qualifies as vesting service, there was no misleading information to correct. When the plaintiff attempted to claim that it was the plan s administrative records that should be reformed to match the benefits estimate, the Court clarified that reformation applies to plan documents, not to administrative records. Equitable Estoppel. The Court also clarified the elements required for a claim of equitable estoppel to succeed. In addition to having to prove the traditional elements of estoppel, the Court held that the plaintiff also has to prove that recovery on the claim does not contradict written plan provisions and that extraordinary circumstances exist. Extraordinary circumstances could include the defendant seeking to profit at the expense of participants, repeated misrepresentations by the defendant over time, or evidence that the plaintiff is particularly vulnerable. This opinion in Gabriel is significant because other court decisions appeared to be expanding the circumstances under which surcharge can be used as an equitable remedy, and this case limits it solely to cases in which a breaching fiduciary was unjustly enriched or a pension trust suffered financial losses. The opinion is very clear that none of the equitable remedies available under ERISA will be used to correct administrative errors that do not improperly benefit the plan or fiduciaries. The case also supports plan sponsors undertaking a complete review of internal processes in order to ensure that administrative records contain correct information to prevent mistaken benefits estimates from being provided to participants. Retirement Practice Legal Consulting & Compliance Quarterly Update 7

8 Contact Information Tom Meagher, Practice Leader Somerset, NJ Sandra Allende Benefits Consultant Somerset, NJ (732) David Alpert Somerset, NJ (732) Hitz Burton Newport Beach, CA (949) Ron Gerard Norwalk, CT (203) Elizabeth Groenewegen San Francisco, CA (415) Dick Hinman San Francisco, CA (415) Clara Kim Somerset, NJ (732) Jack Laufer Newport Beach, CA (949) Meghan Lynch Lincolnshire, IL (847) Beverly Rose Austin, TX (512) Jennifer Ross Berrian San Francisco, CA (415) Dan Schwallie Hudson, OH (330) John Van Duzer Lincolnshire, IL (847) About Aon Hewitt Aon Hewitt empowers organizations and individuals to secure a better future through innovative talent, retirement and health solutions. We advise, design and execute a wide range of solutions that enable clients to cultivate talent to drive organizational and personal performance and growth, navigate retirement risk while providing new levels of financial security, and redefine health solutions for greater choice, affordability and wellness. Aon Hewitt is the global leader in human resource solutions, with over 30,000 professionals in 90 countries serving more than 20,000 clients worldwide. For more information on Aon Hewitt, please visit Aon plc This document is intended for general information purposes only and should not be construed as advice or opinions on any specific facts or circumstances. The comments in this summary are based upon Aon Hewitt's preliminary analysis of publicly available information. The content of this document is made available on an as is basis, without warranty of any kind. Aon Hewitt disclaims any legal liability to any person or organization for loss or damage caused by or resulting from any reliance placed on that content. Aon Hewitt reserves all rights to the content of this document. This Quarterly Update is intended to bring recent developments to the attention of our interested colleagues. The materials have been prepared for informational purposes only and do not constitute consulting, legal, or tax advice. Readers should consult with members of the Legal Consulting & Compliance group if they have any questions in connection with the subjects discussed in this Quarterly Update. Retirement Practice Legal Consulting & Compliance Quarterly Update 8