Tag Archive for: Acquisition

Print Friendly Version Print Friendly Version

Nonprofit Mergers and Acquisitions

/in /by

“What is a membership substitution and is it treated like an asset or stock sale for retirement plan purposes?”

ERISA consultants at the Retirement Learning Center (RLC) Resource Desk regularly receive calls from financial advisors on a broad array of technical topics related to IRAs, qualified retirement plans and other types of retirement savings and income plans, including nonqualified plans, stock options, and Social Security and Medicare. We bring Case of the Week to you to highlight the most relevant topics affecting your business. A recent call with a financial advisor is representative of a common inquiry related to mergers and acquisitions.

The advisor asked: “My client, a nonprofit healthcare facility, is in the initial stages of acquiring another nonprofit healthcare facility through a transaction called a ‘membership substitution.’ Usually, my firm deals with for-profit asset or stock acquisitions. What is a membership substitution and is it treated like an asset or stock sale for retirement plan purposes?”

Highlights of the Discussion

What follows is not legal or tax advice but is for informational purposes only. For specific tax and/or legal questions, please seek guidance from a tax or legal advisor.
Generally speaking, a membership substitution transaction is one type of nonprofit corporate transaction that resembles a stock sale more than an asset sale. (See a related Case of the Week.) In a membership substitution transaction, the parties to the transaction amend their bylaws to reflect the new governance structure resulting from the substitution of members. In addition, for most business purposes, a member substitution results in the acquiring entity stepping into the shoes of the target for the purpose of licensures, handling of charitable donations, debt, and the operation of any retirement plans.

The lack of ownership interest in the nonprofit world raises a natural question: If there is no ownership interest with nonprofits, how can the combination of two or more nonprofit entities be treated as a stock sale, with all that entails, such as the continuation of the of the entities’ operations, financial debts and obligations, missions, as well as our special focus, their retirement plans?

Although there is no shareholder equity passing hands when two nonprofits come together, under the MNCA and most state laws, the merging of nonprofit entities can have results more akin to a stock sale than an asset sale and, therefore, they are considered stock sales for retirement plan purposes. For example, will business operations be uninterrupted? Will the “buyer” acquire the debts and liabilities of the “seller” (including the pension and 401(k) plan unless it is terminated prior to the transaction)?

One of the reasons that nonprofit “mergers and acquisitions” (M&As) often seem inscrutable to those who work primarily in the for-profit sphere is that the bulk of the guiding principles governing nonprofit M&As are not in the Internal Revenue Code or Department of Labor guidance but, rather, in state laws. Fortunately, there has been a streamlining of these state laws (of sorts) due to efforts by the American Bar Association’s (ABA’s) Committee on Nonprofit Organizations of the Business Law Section. The culmination of these efforts is a uniform code that addresses corporate concerns specific to nonprofits, which is known as the Model Nonprofit Corporation Act (MNCA). At last count, 37 out of 50 states have adopted the MNCA.

The MNCA closely follows the Model Business Corporation Act (MBCA), which applies to for-profit entities, but is adapted as necessary to meet the special needs of nonprofits, because, among other things, nonprofits do not have ownership interests in their organizations and they are established under legal authorities so the guideposts for how to treat an M&A transaction are somewhat different in the nonprofit world than they are in the for-profit world.

Conclusion
When dealing with nonprofit M&As and how this activity will impact the retirement plans of the acquiring and target entities, it is important to remember that state laws will be the legal authority from which to seek guidance. Although most states have adopted the MNCA, there still are some that have not, so it is crucial to collaborate with a competent legal advisor who is well versed in the specific state laws governing any specific combination of nonprofit entities.

© Copyright 2024 Retirement Learning Center, all rights reserved
Print Friendly Version Print Friendly Version

Updating the Plan Administrator

/in /by

“In an M&A situation, where the acquiring organization does not assume the seller’s retirement plan, what is something that the selling company often overlooks with respect to its retirement plan?”

ERISA consultants at the Retirement Learning Center (RLC) Resource Desk regularly receive calls from financial advisors on a broad array of technical topics related to IRAs, qualified retirement plans and other types of retirement savings and income plans, including nonqualified plans, stock options, and Social Security and Medicare.  We bring Case of the Week to you to highlight the most relevant topics affecting your business.

A recent call with an advisor in Minnesota is representative of a common inquiry related to company acquisitions and mergers (M&As).

Highlights of Discussion

M&A scenarios are notorious for treating retirement plans as an after-thought. Because little thought is given to plans in these situations, a great deal of confusion, many missteps and fiduciary risk arise. That said, failing to update the Plan Administrator—the person or entity that is authorized with plan service providers to make decisions related to the retirement plan—is a common oversight.

RLC consulted on a case where Company A purchased Company B in an asset sale and Company A did not take on Company B’s 401(k) plan. The person who had been identified as Company B’s Plan Administrator and signed the Forms 5500 no longer held that role after the acquisition. Months went by and the Plan Administrator role was not filled. That meant that the plan was in limbo, and the level of participant frustration was escalating, along with risk of Department of Labor involvement.

Until a new Plan Administrator was formally appointed and the proper documentation provided, the plan recordkeeper would not/could not make any decisions or take any actions with respect to the plan (for fear of fiduciary liability). The owners of Company B should have anticipated that after the sale, a new Plan Administrator would need to be appointed. Once the new Plan Administrator was officially installed, the plan was put on a course for payout and termination.

Conclusion

Little thought—if any—is given to retirement plans in M&A scenarios. Something as simple and common as failing to update the plan decision-maker (Plan Administrator) with service providers can render a plan dead-in-the-water.

© Copyright 2024 Retirement Learning Center, all rights reserved
Print Friendly Version Print Friendly Version

Asset or Stock Sale—Which Could Trigger a Plan Distribution?

/in /by

An advisor asked:  “Between an asset and stock sale of a company, which transaction could trigger a plan distribution for participants?”

ERISA consultants at the Retirement Learning Center (RLC) Resource Desk regularly receive calls from financial advisors on a broad array of technical topics related to IRAs, qualified retirement plans and other types of retirement savings and income plans, including nonqualified plans, stock options, and Social Security and Medicare.  We bring Case of the Week to you to highlight the most relevant topics affecting your business.

A recent call with a financial advisor from San Diego, CA is representative of a common inquiry involving company mergers and acquisitions and what happens to the retirement plans of the involved entities.

Highlights of the Discussion

That is somewhat of a trick question because there is a “general” answer and then there is the “facts and circumstances” answer. Let’s take a look at both answers.

Generally, in a “stock-for-stock” sale, the buyer acquires everything (i.e., “lock, stock and barrel”), including any retirement plans. Consequently, the acquired employees would not incur a severance from employment and, therefore, would not have a distribution triggering event as the buyer would, most likely, assume responsibility for the seller’s plan. In that case, the buyer could choose to merge the acquired company’s plan into its own plan (if one existed) or maintain the plans separately.

Generally, in an asset sale, the acquiring employer would not acquire or continue the seller’s plan, resulting in termination of the seller’s plan and a distribution triggering event for its participants.

However, taking a general approach to complicated transactions like stock and asset sales can land one in hot water. The most prudent approach is for the entities involved to specifically address what will happen to the retirement plans as part of the M&A negotiations.

For example, based on the facts and circumstances of the M&A transaction, it is possible, in a stock transaction, that the merger agreement could specify that the seller terminate its retirement plan. Plan termination would need to be completed prior to the closing date of the merger. If the plan is terminated in a manner compliant with requirements for plan termination, the participants of the seller’s plan would have a distribution triggering event.

Similarly, based on the facts and circumstances of the situation, the merger agreement could specify that the buyer will assume sponsorship of the seller’s plan after the asset sale is complete and, therefore, forestall a distribution triggering event.

Plan assessment tools are helpful in M&A situations. For example, the Retirement Learning Center offers a service called the Plan Forensic Analysis, which is a comprehensive assessment of retirement plans and their provisions, used most often to compare two or more plans involved in an M&A scenario. Such a review is helpful for advisors and their plan sponsor clients to identify potential issues and options as part of the M&A process so there are no surprises (e.g., what will happen to the plans, how do we deal with protected benefits and/or who is responsible for plan corrections).

Conclusion

Generally speaking, a stock sale will not result in a retirement plan distribution opportunity for participants, while an asset sale will, unless the merger agreement specifies otherwise. The most prudent approach to handling retirement plans in an M&A scenario is to address the plans head on as part of the transaction negotiations, use plan assessment and comparison tools, and document decisions.

 

© Copyright 2024 Retirement Learning Center, all rights reserved
Print Friendly Version Print Friendly Version

When SIMPLE IRA plans aren’t so simple Part 1 Mergers and Acquisitions

/in /by

Following an acquisition, can a business owner continue to offer both a SIMPLE IRA and a 401(k) plan at the same time?

ERISA consultants at the Retirement Learning Center Resource Desk regularly receive calls from financial advisors on a broad array of technical topics related to IRAs, qualified retirement plans and other types of retirement savings and income plans, including nonqualified plans, stock options, and Social Security and Medicare. We bring Case of the Week to you to highlight the most relevant topics affecting your business.

A recent call with a financial advisor from Texas is representative of a common inquiry related to savings incentive match plans for employees (SIMPLE) IRA plans. The advisor explained: “A CPA that I network with had a small business client that maintained a SIMPLE IRA plan. The CPA’s client purchased another business in 2018 via a stock acquisition. The acquired business brought with it a 401(k) plan.”

Highlights of the Discussion

Because of the circumstance (i.e., an acquisition) an exception to the “exclusive plan rule” for SIMPLE IRA plans applies.  Among the employer eligibility rules for maintaining a SIMPLE IRA plan is the exclusive plan rule. In general, a single employer may not maintain a SIMPLE IRA plan in the same calendar year it maintains any other type of qualified retirement plan.[1]

In the situation noted above, the merger of the two businesses results in one employer with two plans (a 401(k) and SIMPLE IRA plan) during the same calendar year. Fortunately, a temporary exception to the exclusive plan rule is available. The temporary exception allows the merged businesses to maintain another plan in addition to the SIMPLE IRA plan during the year of merger or acquisition, and the following year as long as, only the original participants continue in the SIMPLE IRA plan (See Q&A B-3(2) of IRS Notice 98-4).

Let’s use this situation as an example. The ownership change occurred in 2018. The SIMPLE IRA plan can be maintained in 2018 and through 2019, along with the 401(k) plan, without running afoul of the exclusive plan rule. Before 2020, however, either the SIMPLE IRA plan or the 401(k) must be terminated.

Conclusion

Acquisitions and mergers involving multiple retirement plans can complicate SIMPLE IRA plan operations due to the exclusive plan rule. It is important to be aware of the transition rule in these scenarios.

[1] Another plan would include a defined benefit, defined contribution, 401(k), 403(a) annuity, 403(b),  a governmental plan other than a 457(b) plan, or a SEP plan.

© Copyright 2024 Retirement Learning Center, all rights reserved
retirement plan
Print Friendly Version Print Friendly Version

Time to Deal with Mergers

/in /by

Time for Managing a Plan Merger

“My client is working through a business acquisition, which will involve merging two 401(k) plans.  He is concerned about how quickly they will be able to merge the plans.  Are there guidelines on compliance testing for the plans during the merger process?”

ERISA consultants at the Retirement Learning Center Resource Desk regularly receive calls from financial advisors on a broad array of technical topics related to IRAs and qualified retirement plans. We bring Case of the Week to you to highlight the most relevant topics affecting your business.

Highlights of Discussion

  • A special “transition rule” under Internal Revenue Code Section (IRC §) 410(b)(6)(C) applies for meeting employee coverage requirements in situations where an acquisition involves the merging of two plans. Under these rules, the plan will continue to be considered in compliance with minimum coverage requirements during a “transition period.”
  • The transition period is the period that begins on the date of the transaction and ends on the last day of the first plan year beginning after the date of the transaction.  For example, for an acquisition that takes place on September 1, 2017, the transition period that would apply for a calendar year plan would last until December 31, 2018.
  • The transition rule is only available if 1) both plans satisfy the coverage rules immediately before the acquisition; and 2) there are no significant changes in either the terms of the plan or the coverage of the plans following the transaction.

Conclusion

The merging of two employer plans is a complicated and time consuming process. Fortunately, from an employee coverage perspective, there are transitional rules that give the employer some relief.

 

 

 

© Copyright 2024 Retirement Learning Center, all rights reserved