The Rosenbaum Law Firm P.C. Blog

20 years ago, the hard liquor business was dying and microbreweries were the hottest thing. People may not be aware of it, but for most of the existence of television, the spirit industry had a self-imposed ban on liquor advertising. We all know that beer advertising was a thing, but hard liquor ads never popped, until someone broke the ban. Crown Royal started advertising on TV in 1996 and the spirit industry is doing quite well. Just asked celebrities such as George Clooney and Sammy Hagar about how profitable the business is now and the beer industry, like an old Bud, is flat.

What does my history of the liquor business means is that not only is business cyclical, there can be game-changers that could decimate or turnaround the industry.Another stock market crash will hurt the business, a law change that curtails the role of some plan providers may hurt as well. Other changes could have a beneficial impact on the business. Nothing is stationary forever, this business like every other business, changes.

My latest newsletter can be found here.

The fascinating part of ERISA litigations is the changing law and viewpoints. To combat the rising tide of litigation, some companies have included arbitration provisions in their Plan document. That means participants can’t adjudicate their claims in court, they must in arbitration.

While being originally against, the Nine Circuit in Dorman v. Charles Schwab only covers that circuit; it does gain insight that arbitration provisions in a plan document may serve as a safety valve to limit litigation expenses and arbitrate disputes through binding arbitration.

I’m not suggesting that every plan sponsor adopt one in their plan document since again, it’s the Ninth Circuit, but it may give us some insight that it will become more popular and more acceptable.

My latest article for JDSupra.com can be found here.

My latest article for JDSupra.com can be found here.

You’ve got a lot on your plate as a retirement plan provider and the last thing you need is more headaches. So don’t add to your workload and headaches by deciding to bill for the work of another provider.

I’m an ERISA attorney and if I refer a plan sponsor to a third-party administrator (TPA), I’m not going to bill for that TPA’s work. Your job is to provide the best service for your client, your job isn’t to be the billing office of another provider. Forget about the accounting aspects of it, what if the other provider doesn’t provide the work promised? Are you know going to have to refund money that was never yours, to begin with?

The road to hell is paved with good intentions and nothing good could come by doing another provider a solid by acting as their billing office.

It’s funny in a sense that the people who should be most experienced with Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDROs), many divorce attorneys, don’t seem to know how to draft a QDRO. They try to seek guidance from the folks who have the least amount of information about them: plan sponsors.

Rather than bothering your third-party administrator or an ERISA attorney, who might charge you for one, get a sample QDRO to get the ball rolling for the divorce attorney, the payee, and the alternate payee. If you need a sample QDRO, contact me, no charge.

Kenny Roger’s “The Gambler” song has some great tips. You need to know when to hold ‘em, know when to fold ‘em, know when to walk away, and know when to run.

MIT wisely settled a class-action lawsuit concerning their retirement plans and the relationship with Fidelity as a plan provider and Abigail Johnson’s role at Fidelity and as an MIT trustee. I knew a settlement was imminent when Johnson fought the attempts to force her to testify.

I don’t know the particulars of the MIT-Fidelity relationship, other than the fact that it looked bad on paper and some MIT officials said some things about the relationship in connection with fundraising that would give a bad impression at trial. The appearance of impropriety is enough some times.

We won’t know the details of the settlement until October.

When I was a kid, I’d be passive-aggressive in the sense that I wouldn’t let people know how upset I was about things. Thanks to some age and maturity, I don’t have to be that scared kid anymore and not ask what I want.

While signing up a new multiple employer plan up with a pretty good third-party administrator (TPA), I asked whether I could work with a certain automatic rollover provider that I’m fond of. I was told by the TPA that they were fully integrated with another provider so that it was impossible. I pushed back, saying I liked this automatic rollover provider and that it was a better product for the participant and the advisor of the plan. Needless to say, the TPA said they were willing to use the other provider. I knew they would because it’s not like a TPA is making any money off any automatic rollover provider. You can ask and they may say no, but they’re likely to say yes if it’s not going to affect their bottom line.

People aren’t mind readers, if there is something you have in mind with another plan provider, ask them to consider what you want. Otherwise, you’ll never know whether you could have gotten what you wanted.

If people pass on enough incorrect information out there, you start to believe it. When I worked at that semi-prestigious law firm (sorry, Lois), we had a litigation partner that everyone told me was excellent. Being a naïve associate, I took their word.

I was told that he only picked cases that were sure wins. So when I had a personal litigation matter, I reached out. Rather than politely declining the case, he was really rude about it. Needless to say that after many years later and reviewing some of the cases since I left the firm, this litigator only picked winning cases because he had a poor track record in the close cases.

When it comes to working with other providers, make sure any recommendations come with something more than just fluff., If someone tells you how a provider is so good, they should be able to verify how good they are. Referrals and recommendations you get, need to be concrete because the last thing you need is to depend on a “superstar” who belongs on the bench.