A frequent, but often times avoidable, operational error for retirement plans is the failure to use the proper definition of “compensation” for various plan purposes, including, without limitation, calculating employee deferrals and employer contributions. A retirement plan’s definition of compensation typically includes dozens of components that all must be properly coded in the plan sponsor’s payroll system as either eligible or ineligible plan compensation. One such component that is frequently misclassified is the value of employee equity awards, such as stock options and restricted stock. Accordingly, plan sponsors should periodically compare the plan’s definition of compensation to the employer’s payroll records to verify that the proper definition of compensation has been used for all relevant plan purposes. Performing such an audit can help identify any errors and minimize the amount of corrective contributions and other fees or expenses that may be associated with correcting the error.
In Mayne Pharma International Pty. Ltd. v. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., (Fed. Cir. June 21, 2019), the Federal Circuit affirmed the decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) permitting the petitioner to include an additional real party in interest in its mandatory notice without altering the petition’s filing date. Background Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. (“MSD”) filed a petition for inter partes review against U.S. Patent Number 6,881,745 (“the ’745 patent”) assigned to Mayne Pharma International Pty. Ltd. (“Mayne”). In its Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, Mayne urged the Board to decline institution because MSD’s parent company, Merck & Co., Inc. (“MCI”), was not identified as a real party in interest. Based on the record at that time, however, the Board was not persuaded and instituted review. Mayne then requested rehearing, arguing that the Board abused its discretion. The Board rejected this argument and maintained the proceeding. During… Continue Reading
Fifth Circuit Defers to Plan Administrator’s Claim Appeal Decision Involving Competing Medical Opinions
In Rittinger v. Health Alliance Life Insurance Company, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, whose jurisdiction includes Texas, analyzed the claims decision-making process of a group health plan administrator that had been granted discretion under the terms of the employer’s group health plan. The court determined that, based on such grant of discretion, the plan administrator’s decision regarding a participant’s benefits claim appeal was entitled to judicial deference, even with respect to the plan administrator’s selection of competing medical providers’ opinions. Background regarding Grant of Discretion under ERISA Under general standards, a court will consider denials of appealed benefits claims under an employer-sponsored employee benefit plan (including a group health plan) that is subject to ERISA on a “de novo” basis, which means that the court will not give any deference to the plan administrator’s prior decision on a benefit claim appeal, but instead can substitute its… Continue Reading
In BTG Int’l Ltd. v. Amneal Pharms. LLC (Fed. Cir. May 14, 2019), the Federal Circuit affirmed the decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and the District Court in a consolidated appeal addressing whether generic versions of an anti-cancer drug infringed the claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,822,438 (the ’438 patent) held by BTG International Ltd (BTG). The PTAB and the District Court found that the asserted claims of the ’438 patent were obvious and therefore invalid. The Federal Circuit focused on one of the final written decisions of the PTAB, which it affirmed, rendering the remaining appeals moot. Background BTG produces Zytiga (abiraterone acetate), a CYP17 inhibitor used in conjunction with prednisone to treat refractory prostate cancer. The ’438 patent discloses a method to treat cancer by administering a therapeutically effective amount of a CYP17 inhibitor and a therapeutically effective amount of… Continue Reading
Final regulations were recently released by the U.S. Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and the Treasury (collectively, the “Departments”) which create two new options for providing employer-sponsored group health coverage under a health reimbursement arrangement (“HRA”). The Departments also issued a set of FAQs which outline key points regarding these new HRA options and other changes reflected in the regulations. An HRA is a type of account-based health plan that employers may use to reimburse employees for their medical care expenses. Individual Coverage HRA The first option, an “Individual Coverage HRA,” may be offered by employers as an alternative to coverage under a traditional group health plan (“Traditional GHP”), subject to certain conditions. In effect, Individual Coverage HRAs extend the federal tax advantages that are afforded to Traditional GHPs (i.e., exclusion of premiums and benefits received from federal income and payroll taxes) to HRA reimbursements of an individual’s… Continue Reading
The U.S. Department of Labor has released updated model Summary Annual Reports (“SARs”) for retirement plans and for welfare benefit plans that are subject to ERISA. Generally, a plan that is required to file an annual Form 5500 is also required to distribute a SAR to plan participants and beneficiaries within nine months from the end of the plan year. View the updated model SAR for welfare plans. View the updated model SAR for retirement plans.
Patent Eligibility of GUI-Related Claims in Light of the Federal Circuit’s Recent Decision in Trading Techs. Int’l. v. IBG LLC
In Trading Techs. Int’l. v. IBG LLC, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decision that the claims in a GUI-related patent, U.S. Patent No. 7,783,556 to Singer et al. (“the ’556 Patent”), were ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.[i] Generally, the ’556 Patent relates to displaying a trading screen on a graphical user interface (“GUI”).[ii] The trading screen displays market information to a trader and also places orders for a trade from the trader.[iii] Using the Alice framework, the Federal Circuit determined that the claims were “directed to” an abstract idea at step one of the Alice framework, and that there were no additional elements that transformed the claims into a patent eligible application at step two of the Alice framework.[iv] At first glance, this decision might be disappointing to inventors of GUI-related technology. However, a review of the ’556 Patent reveals support for this decision, which still… Continue Reading
The IRS recently issued Revenue Procedure 2019-25, which sets the 2020 calendar year limits on (i) annual contributions that can be made to a health savings account (“HSA”) and (ii) annual deductibles and out-of-pocket maximums under a high deductible health plan (“HDHP”). The 2020 limits are as follows: Annual HSA contribution limits: $3,550 for self-only coverage ($50 increase from 2019); $7,100 for family coverage ($100 increase from 2019) Minimum HDHP deductibles: $1,400 for self-only coverage ($50 increase from 2019); $2,800 for family coverage ($100 increase from 2019) HDHP out-of-pocket maximum limits: $6,900 for self-only coverage ($150 increase from 2019); $13,800 for family coverage ($300 increase from 2019) View Rev. Proc. 2019-25.
When participants in a qualified retirement plan terminate employment with the plan sponsor, it can be challenging to ensure that their contact information in the plan’s records is kept up to date and accurate. Inaccurate contact information is problematic for a variety of reasons, including potentially causing an operational failure when such participants do not receive distribution of their plan benefits by their required distribution date, as well as increasing the possibility of fraud when a participant’s information is sent to the wrong address. In addition, a plan sponsor’s failure to make reasonable efforts to locate missing participants would be a breach of their fiduciary duties of loyalty and prudence. Often, the first indication that a participant may be missing is that mail sent to their last known address is returned undeliverable or their distribution checks are returned or remain uncashed. In addition, a plan sponsor should check to see… Continue Reading
Under ERISA, a participant in an ERISA-covered plan has the right to designate an authorized representative to act on his or her behalf in connection with claims and appeals. The plan may establish reasonable procedures for determining whether an individual has been authorized to act on behalf of a claimant. Earlier this year, the DOL issued an information letter stating, in part, that: “The plan must include any procedures for designating authorized representatives in the plan’s claims procedures and in the plan’s summary plan description (“SPD”) or a separate document that accompanies the SPD.” Employers that sponsor ERISA plans should (i) verify that the claims procedures in each plan and SPD contain reasonable procedures for designating authorized representatives and (ii) amend the plan and SPD as needed. View the DOL information letter.