Options for Unaffordable Pensions: Out-of-Bankruptcy Distress Terminations

A distress termination may be a viable option for financially challenged employers that need pension funding relief but want to avoid bankruptcy.

As economic and business conditions change, plan sponsors are sometimes no longer able to afford their pension obligations. A distress termination may be a viable option for financially challenged employers that need pension funding relief but want to avoid bankruptcy. Although the process is time-consuming and comes with some risks, it also provides the sponsor with a potential avenue for negotiating reduced or delayed pension payments.  

What is a distress termination?

Get more!  Sign up for PLANSPONSOR newsletters.

The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) has the authority to permit a plan sponsor to terminate its underfunded pension plan outside of bankruptcy through a distress termination when the sponsor, and each member of its controlled group excepting certain de minimis entities, will be unable to pay its debts when due and continue in business unless the plan is terminated. This is generally determined through a “but for” test, meaning the company needs to prove to PBGC that, but for the pension, the company could stay in business. PBGC generally reviews applications to ensure that the company has a viable business plan going forward and has taken all reasonable steps to either reduce costs or find alternative methods of funding the pension.

PBGC can also grant a distress termination where a company makes a showing that unreasonably high pension costs are due solely to declining covered employment under all single-employer pension plans for which the entity is a contributing sponsor. However, that test is often difficult to meet as pensions become unaffordable for a variety of reasons, which may include, but not be solely as a result of, a work force decline.

 

What are the benefits of a distress termination?

The distress termination process allows a plan sponsor to work with PBGC to resolve pension liabilities without resorting to bankruptcy, which can be a costly, inefficient and risky process. Typically, PBGC and a plan sponsor enter into an agreement to settle the liabilities related to the termination, and PBGC has a considerable amount of latitude when negotiating. Settlements often include a mix of short-term payments with longer-term, secured obligations—e.g., secured notes. PBGC also is typically willing to work with lenders to ensure that the company still has access to credit and does not breach its covenants. The ultimate goal is to reach an agreement that allows the company to continue as a going concern while providing PBGC with resources to pay guaranteed pension benefits.  

How do you apply for a distress termination?

To initiate a distress termination, a plan administrator must apply to PBGC. The administrator first selects a date of plan termination, and, as of that date, the plan must reduce the benefits of those in pay status to PBGC-guaranteed levels. The administrator then files a Notice of Plan Termination with “affected parties,” including participants, beneficiaries and PBGC. 

In its notice to PBGC, the plan administrator must provide information, including tax returns, audited financial statements, projections and a summary of any restructuring efforts taken prior to applying for the termination. The administrator is also required to submit plan-related information to PBGC such as the plan document, actuarial valuation reports and participant information. 

If PBGC determines that a plan qualifies for a distress termination, PBGC will take over as trustee and begin making benefit payments. The plan sponsor and all controlled group members become jointly and severally liable to PBGC for the plan’s underfunding, as well as any unpaid minimum required contributions, unpaid variable-rate and flat-rate premiums and termination premiums ($1,250 per participant per year for three years). Importantly, the plan’s underfunding is calculated using PBGC’s conservative termination assumptions, which generally results in a considerably larger liability for the plan sponsor.  PBGC typically resolves all of the liabilities through a negotiated settlement with the plan sponsor.

 

What are the risks associated with a distress termination?

An out-of-bankruptcy distress termination may be appropriate for some, but plan sponsors should be aware that the process can take a considerable amount of time. Success is also largely dependent on PBGC’s willingness to enter into a settlement that is affordable for the company. If PBGC and the sponsor are unsuccessful in negotiating a settlement, the plan sponsor may be responsible for accelerated funding obligations, and liens may arise. Finally, the settlement of termination liability with PBGC does not necessarily settle all plan-related obligations, so the sponsor may need to have additional discussions with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to resolve, for example, funding-related excise taxes. 

 

Michael Kreps (mkreps@groom.com) and Mark Carolan (mcarolan@groom.com) practice at Groom Law Group, Chartered, where they counsel employers on pension plan funding and restructuring, as well as other issues.

 

This feature is to provide general information only, does not constitute legal or tax advice, and cannot be used or substituted for legal or tax advice. Any opinions of the author do not necessarily reflect the stance of Asset International or its affiliates.

SURVEY SAYS: Socially Responsible Investments in DC Plans

The Department of Labor (DOL) has paved the ways for inclusion of environmental, social and governance (ESG)-screened investments to be included in defined contribution (DC) plan menus.

Last week, I asked NewsDash readers, “Do you invest in socially responsible investments in your DC plan, and do you think the returns on these investments are on par with non-screened investments?”

 

For more stories like this, sign up for the PLANSPONSOR NEWSDash daily newsletter.

The majority (73.9%) of responding readers work in a plan sponsor role, while 13% are TPAs/recordkeepers/investment managers, 8.7% are attorneys and 4.3% are advisers/consultants.

 

Two-thirds of respondents reported they do not care if their retirement plan investments are in socially responsible companies, and one-third do care. Three-quarters said their company’s DC plan does not offer ESG-screened investment options, while there was an even split (12.5% each) of plans that do and respondents who don’t know if their plans offer ESG-screened investment options.

 

The majority (87.5%) of responding readers do not invest in socially responsible investments in thier DC plans, and 12.5% said they do.

 

Asked whether they think ESG-screened investment returns are on par with non-screened investments, 58.3% said some are and some aren’t, 20.8% don’t know, 16.7% said no and 4.2% said yes.

 

In verbatim comments, some pointed out that their plan’s objective was just to provide an appropriate mix in their investment menus. Some were for and some were against using ESG factors in considering fund options. Editor’s Choice goes to the reader who said: “ESG-screened funds should be subject to the same process to determine if they are appropriate for our DC plans as are all other funds.”

 

A big thank you to all who participated in the survey!

 

Verbatim

With a streamlined investment menu, it’s not appropriate to try adding a lot of extra investments catering to these segments. If employees want to invest in these types of funds, they are available through a Mutual Fund Window.

Our primary focus is offering a diverse fund line-up that provides a mix of passive and active asset class options to participants who wish to actively manage their own portfolios and passive target-date funds for those who do not.

Social Engineering should be left outside of retirement plans

When managers incorporate ESG factors into a bottoms-up fundamental analysis it often adds another dimension to risk management that can add value over time.

Our DC plan exists only to make it possible for our employees’ retirement. Period.

Traditionally, the lineup is all about investment returns based the particular investment objective. Those returns are measured numerically because more money is better. ESG effectively says money is not the only measure and we will sacrifice money for principle. It shrinks the universe of available investments to get the best returns.

The plan has had a socially responsible fund option for several years. Even though it performs well, participation in that fund option is low.

I don’t see the allure, in contrast to my fellow Millennials. All of our active investment managers have always used some form of “ESG” in their framework for stock selection. But I, nor my investment committee, would impose anything on them as restrictive as this, nor would we impose an entire mandate or sleeve on our total asset allocation. Generally, constraining the sandbox constrains alpha. Plus, they’re the stock pickers, not me – I just find the stock pickers and the correct AA.

Any decent active manager is already considering the advantages, and potential disadvantages, a company might have. If not, they’re giving away excess return.

For me, the returns would have to be very near to other investment options. Frankly, I can’t afford to underperform.

ESG-screened funds should be subject to the same process to determine if they are appropriate for our DC plans as are all other funds.

 

 

NOTE: Responses reflect the opinions of individual readers and not necessarily the stance of Strategic Insight or its affiliates.

«