The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq. (“ERISA”), is the federal law that governs most employee benefit plans in the United States. As its name implies, this includes retirement plans like pension plans and 401(k) plans. The law is complicated, comprehensive, and imposes a variety of regulations and obligations on the individuals and entities that administer and service the plans. These regulations and obligations exist for good reason: to prevent corruption and self-dealing; protect the plan’s assets for the benefit for all participants; and to ensure the prudent and impartial administration of covered plans.
On Thursday, November 10, 2016, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee issued an opinion in Perez v. Eye Centers of Tennessee, Case No. 2:14-cv-0115, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156248 (M.D. Tenn. November 10, 2016), a case brought by the Secretary of Labor, against the sponsor and several fiduciaries of a profit-sharing plan. (A copy of the opinion may be downloaded by clicking here.) The Defendants’ conduct, as described the court, illustrates the sort of self-dealing and imprudent behavior that ERISA was designed to prevent.
Eye Centers of Tennessee (“ECOTN”) is an ophthalmology practice with multiple offices. ECOTN sponsored a retirement plan (“the Plan”) for the benefit of its employees. The Plan is a contribution based retirement plan that permits discretionary profit sharing contributions to be made by ECOTN. The Plan also allowed participants, through payroll deductions, to contribute a portion of their paycheck to the Plan. ECOTN, its principal owner, and its office manager were the Plan’s named fiduciaries.
The individual Defendants in Eye Centers were all “parties in interest” of the Eye Centers of Tennessee 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan (“the Plan”). A party in interest includes:
29 U.S.C. §1002(14). Section 406 of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1106, prohibits certain transactions involving “parties in interest.” In addition, some Defendants were also Plan fiduciaries. Section 404 of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1104, requires plan fiduciaries to, among other things, discharge their fiduciary duties solely in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries for the sole purpose of providing plan benefits to participants and their beneficiaries and defraying reasonable administrative expenses of the plan. Fiduciaries are also required to discharge their duties “with the care, skill, prudence, and diligence” of a prudent person acting under the same or similar circumstances. 29 U.S.C. § 1104.
The Eye Centers Defendants engaged in many prohibited transactions and breaches of their fiduciary duties. They included:
The Court held that each of the above-transactions was a per se prohibited transaction in violation of ERISA Section 406(a). Likewise, Defendants engaged in self-dealing in violation of ERISA Section 406(b). The Court further found that no prohibited transaction exemption was applicable to Defendants. Although ERISA Section 408(b)(2), 29 U.S.C. § 1108(b)(2), allows for an exemption for “contracting or making reasonable arrangements with a party in interest for office space, or legal, accounting, or other services necessary for the establishment or the operation of the plan, if no more than reasonable compensation is paid therefor,” it does not exempt violations of self-dealing under ERISA Section 406(b)(1) or (2). 29 C.F.R. § 2550.408b-2. Likewise, any compensation made to other parties in interest must be reasonable to qualify for exemption. The Eye Centers Defendants did not show that they met this reasonableness requirement. Finally, Defendants did not dispute that the fiduciary defendants failed to discharge their fiduciary duty in accordance with ERISA Section 404.
The Defendants were barred from ever administering another employee benefit plan, and the case will proceed to trial to determine the damages owed to the plan due to Defendants’ misconduct.
From the initial phone call for assistance to the end of the case Adam and The Garner Firm was an absolute blessing to me and my family. He presented genuine concern and professionalism throughout the process. Where as other attorneys see’s a client as a client Adam fights for a client like were and individual who’s rights have been violated. I’m very grateful for his help through a very rough time and trust that this review is sincere. Blessing to the Adam and The Garner Firm.
Adam Garner is the definition of professionalism and expertise. He is currently handling my case, which turned out to be more difficult than expected, and is getting positive results. I would highly recommend Mr. Garner to anyone with a disability and/or workplace issue.
The Garner Firm provides quality advice and guidance for clients with employment matters. I highly recommend the Garner Firm.
Adam did an exceptional job in helping me both understand my situation and fight for my benefits/disability claim. He is extremely knowledgeable about the law and how it will effect your case. He was up front with us on how difficult our case may be and was always available to discuss our situation/answer questions. Adam also cares about you and takes an interest. He did an outstanding job to help me win my case against strong odds and was a blessing to have him as my lawyer. Thank you Adam for all you have done and continue doing on my behalf.
How did we do?
Note: Your review may be shared publicly.