Deals & People May 12, 2015

Maresh Yoshida 401k Rebrands as InTrust Fiduciary

The Maresh Yoshida 401k Group, a 401(k) advisory firm in Austin, says it is changing its corporate name to InTrust Fiduciary Group.
Reported by

The new name better reflects its broader commitment to servicing company retirement plans and its expertise in bringing institutional-level plan advice to companies of all sizes, the company says. The transition to InTrust Fiduciary Group will take place over the next several months.

According to Michael Maresh, principal of InTrust Fiduciary Group, the name InTrust Fiduciary Group better captures the nature of the firm and what it represents, because of its growth within all types of workplace retirement plan segments. “We now provide independent retirement plan consulting services for organizations of all sizes,” Maresh says.

Want the latest retirement plan adviser news and insights? Sign up for PLANADVISER newsletters.

The firm has been providing independent and objective advice to plan sponsors and their employees for more than 15 years. InTrust Fiduciary Group’s primary focus is Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) consulting for both publicly and privately held companies, and non-profit organizations. The firm will continue serving as a fiduciary partner.

“Every company we meet with has similar plan goals: reduce risks, lower costs, relieve fiduciary burdens and most importantly, give their employees the best chance for retirement success,” Maresh said in a statement. “We believe the only way to achieve this is to provide unbiased, personalized, conflict-free advice.”

More information about InTrust Fiduciary Group is on its website.

Compliance May 12, 2015

Courts Split on Definition of Church Plan

A recent decision in Maryland leaves U.S. district courts evenly split on cases challenging retirement plans’ “church plan” status under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.
Reported by

The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland has issued an order granting partial dismissal of claims against Trinity Health Corporation challenging the “church plan” status of its retirement plan for employees.

The court says it holds that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) permits an organization that is “controlled by or associated with a church or convention of churches” to establish a “church plan.” The ruling evenly splits district court findings in six circuits, with half finding as the Maryland court did in Lann v. Trinity Health Corporation, and half finding that only a church may establish a “church plan.”   

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

Lawyers for Trinity Health argued that ERISA Section 3(33) subsection (A) states “the term ‘church plan’ means a plan established and maintained . . . for its employees (or their beneficiaries) by a church or by a convention or association of churches.” Subsection (C)(i)’s introduction then repeats the same language on what a “church plan” means, and after repeating the definition of “church plan” contained in subsection (A), subsection (C)(i) then states that such a plan includes a plan maintained by an organization (whether a civil law corporation or otherwise); (i) whose principal purpose or function is the administration or funding of the plan; and (ii) which is controlled by or associated with a church or a convention or association of churches. Subsection (A) thus exempts plans of churches, while subsection (C)(i) exempts plans of church-affiliated organizations.

In their argument, the attorneys say even if the “church plan” exemption were found ambiguous, the court should defer to the long-standing interpretation of federal agencies.

In addition, Trinity’s lawyers note that ERISA Section 3(33) Subsection (D) provides that if a plan fails to meet “one or more of the requirements of [ERISA § 3(33)],” the plan is entitled to a correction period to fix the defect. If a correction is made timely, the plan is deemed to meet “church plan” status “for the year in which the correction is made and all prior years.” According to the attorney’s this statutory right to retroactive correction means a court should resolve “church plan” status conclusively (and permit corrections) before considering any ERISA claims.

According to an FYI publication from Buck Consultants at Xerox, the three cases finding against “church plan” status for the defendants have appealed to the 9th, 3rd, and 7th Circuits. The Overall v. Ascension Health case, in which a district court found Ascension Health’s plan qualified as a “church plan” under ERISA, was appealed to the federal appellate court, but has been returned to the district court to consider a proposed settlement between the parties. More cases have been stayed pending appellate court decisions.

«