What is the Baseline for A Committee to Act in the Best Interest of Its Participants? (Part 2)
This is the third of the series about Best Practices for Plan Sponsors.
This is my second article about the case of Sacerdote v. New York University. As I discussed in my last post, the Court’s opinion pointed out the deficiencies in the understandings and conduct of some committee members. However, the Court ultimately ruled in favor of the plan fiduciaries and against the plaintiffs. Why was that?
What is the Baseline for A Committee to Act in the Best Interest of Its Participants? (Part 1)
This is the second of the series about Best Practices for Plan Sponsors.
The recent decision in the case of Sacerdote v. New York University is a classic story of the good and bad of plan committees. Let’s start with the bad.
Five current and former committee members testified at the trial. But not all of the testimony was helpful.
Projection of Retirement Income
This is the first of the series about Best Practices for Plan Sponsors.
“Best Practice” is above and beyond the legal requirements. Best Practices are not mandated; they are elected.
While the most obvious Best Practices are automatic enrollment and automatic deferral increases, I want to start with the projection of retirement income for participants. That’s partially because it is in a current legislative proposal—in the Retirement Enhancement and Savings Act (RESA), and also because, in my opinion, it doesn’t receive the attention that it deserves.
