DOL’s Late IB 95-1 Report Concludes More Time Is Needed

The long-awaited report makes no recommendations for changes.

The Department of Labor Monday published its long-awaited report on Interpretative Bulletin 95-1, which outlines the process the defined benefit plan fiduciaries must use when selecting an annuity provider to which the plan will transfer pension obligations. The report summarized meetings and discussions with stakeholders and concluded the DOL is “not prepared at this time to propose amendments to the Interpretive Bulletin” however, the report indicates that the department could consider changes to the bulletin warranted in the future. 

“[Employee Benefits Security Administration] has not concluded that changes to the Interpretive Bulletin are unwarranted,” the DOL wrote in the findings section of the 29-page report.

Get more!  Sign up for PLANSPONSOR newsletters.

“Today’s report is the result of an extensive and thorough review, including more than 40 stakeholder meetings on this topic and input received through our consultation with the ERISA Advisory Council,” said Assistant Secretary for Employee Benefits Security Lisa M. Gomez. “We look forward to further exploration of the issues and concerns raised during the process, so that we can consider what next steps may be necessary to guide fiduciaries considering a pension risk transfer for their defined benefit pension plans, so that the fiduciaries can meet their obligations to participants and beneficiaries.”

IB 95-1 is a guidance document issued in 1995 by DOL that describes what fiduciaries operating under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act must consider when selecting an insurer as a pension risk transfer provider to be sure that the provider is safe one. The six criteria include:

  1. The insurer’s investment portfolio
  2. Size of the insurer relative to the size of the PRT contract
  3. Level of insurer’s capital and surplus
  4. Other lines of business of the insurer
  5. Structure and guarantees of the contract
  6. Additional protection offered by state-level guaranty associations

The report, required by Section 321 of the SECURE 2.0 Act of 2022, summarizes potential shortcomings of IB 95-1 that were identified by stakeholders in more than 40 meetings with the DOL in consultations with the ERISA Advisory Council last July, without making any recommendations itself.

Some of the key issues highlighted by stakeholders, DOL wrote, included private equity ownership of PRT providers, offshore reinsurance agreements, and administrative capacity. Pension risk transfer activity has been increasing in recent years as the funding levels of corporate pension funds as risen due to interest rates and investment performance.

The report read: “stakeholders had a global concern that private equity-owned insurers may not intend to be in the insurance business for the long term and, by definition, annuities are long-term commitments. These stakeholders questioned whether private equity firms would have policyholders’ interests at the forefront.”

Mark Unhoch, pension risk transfer practice leader at consulting firm October Three, says that the administrative capacity “should be part of IB 95-1.” Elements such as “customer service, checks coming on time, making changes online or elsewhere,” become critical services for an insurance company to offer when they take over a pension, and IB 95-1 as currently written is silent on whether a pension fiduciary should even consider it.

Congress in SECURE 2.0 required the report to be finished by December 29, 2023, 178 days ago. All the same, the report concludes: “Further exploration into developments in both the life insurance industry and in pension risk transfer practices is necessary to determine whether some of the Interpretive Bulletin’s factors need revision or supplementation and whether additional guidance should be developed.”

AI’s Role in ERISA Lawsuit Selection

Plaintiffs' attorneys have the potential to use AI to identify and speed case selection.

Artificial intelligence “is not revolutionary, it is evolutionary,” says David Levine, a principal and ERISA defense attorney with the Groom Law Group, when it comes to ERISA plaintiff attorneys bringing lawsuits against qualified retirement plans.

Darrow AI, an AI legal services provider, hosted a webinar focused on the Employee Retirement Income Security Act on June 18 explaining AI’s role in this emerging space. During that session, Shai Silbermann, a legal data specialist at Darrow, explained that AI can be used to help identify funds that underperform in plans more efficiently than humans can.

Never miss a story — sign up for PLANSPONSOR newsletters to keep up on the latest retirement plan benefits news.

Many funds in retirement plans “are often not monitored,” by fiduciaries, Silbermann said, and AI can help lawyers identify such funds without having to manually go through plan Form 5500s.

Silbermann explained that their “algorithm highlights the worst underperformers” and can help identify “what plans underperform, by how much and for how long.”

Attorney Levine, who often represents fiduciary defendants, says that the use of AI in this field of law is relatively new, but its use is “very much a data processing tool,” and little else. Fiduciaries should generally follow the same principles as before, he says, but since AI models tend to focus on data procured from Form 5500s, sponsors should consider evaluating their Form 5500 reporting to be sure everything is accurate.

A blog post published by Darrow elaborates on how the firm uses AI to identify potential plan flaws.

“By combining every plan’s data from the past several years, we prioritized leads with the potential for the largest and most egregious damages,” Darrow’s blog reads. “This approach allowed us to identify dozens of highly probable violations and compare recordkeeping and other fees paid by plans of a similar size, highlighting the administrators’ imprudence. Furthermore, to emphasize the severity of the violations, we compare the amount the specific recordkeeper usually charges for plans of a similar size.”

The post also argued that “It has frequently been argued in court that charging $25-$35 per participant for the administration of a pension plan is considered reasonable, and thus charging above this amount could be considered excessive fees.”

Levine takes issue with the range, saying that: “There is absolutely nothing in ERISA that says the reasonable range is $25-$35.”

He adds that this view on fees and costs “disregards level of services, level of support, call center times, a myriad of factors,” that could justify higher fees. These services and their providers are “not interchangeable widgets.”

Darrow was founded in 2020 and is being used by more than 300 attorneys, according to its website. The firm notes more than $10 billion in claimed damages from attorneys using its services.

«