As is the custom, the editors have identified a few recent items worthy of mention but perhaps not extensive discourse. That does not mean these developments are unimportant but rather that they are, to a large degree, self-explanatory or both too important and too new to address fully. It is also the case for those in "Well, what about . . . .?" mode that our criteria for inclusion are relatively loose and we make no effort to track every development across the spectrum of concerns covered by JCEB in real time. We are, however, very interested in what interests you, so please let us know what we left out and whether you know someone who might be interested in developing the omitted item for later article treatment. In that spirit we offer the following for consideration:
- The On Going Saga of the Fiduciary Regulations. DOL issued a 60-Day extension of the applicability date of the regulations which now go live no earlier than June 9, 2017. 29 CFR §2510.3-21.zz-1. The next day, the Fifth Circuit denied a request for an emergency injunction that would have blocked application of the rules. U.S. Chamber of Commerce v. DOL (5th Cir. 2017).
- IRS Is Seeking Comments on the Procedure for Multiemployer Plan Sponsors to Request Amortization Extensions. IRS is interested in comments on: (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. 82 Fed. Reg. 14803 (March 22, 2017).
- PBGC Is Seeking Similar Comments . The PBGC request pertains to the disclosure required when projected plan sponsor liability on unfunded benefits exceeds 30% of the sponsor's net worth. 82 Fed. Reg. 15724 (March 30, 2017)
- When Worlds Collide: Orrand v Hunt Construction Group Inc. (6th Cir. 2017). The employer, facing conflicting jurisdictional claims by the Laborers and Operating Engineers arising from conflicting collective bargaining agreements, sought and received a jurisdictional determination under NLRA Section 10(k), 29 U.S.C. Section 160(k). NLRB found the work was properly within the jurisdiction of the Laborers. In the interim the affected Operating Engineers plans had filed an ERISA Section 515 action. The Sixth Circuit found that the NLRB determination barred the ERISA claims.
- For Want of a Definition: Mayes v. WinCo Holdings, Inc, 846 F3d 1274 (9th Cir. 2017). Congress in its wisdom created an exception from COBRA coverage for terminations due to "gross misconduct" but did not define the term. Here the employer asserted a form of theft was the reason for termination and denied COBRA eligibility. The employee claimed that the termination was due to gender discrimination. The court of appeals found that in reversing the judgment in favor of the employer on the discrimination claim it necessarily needed to vacate the similar ruling on the COBRA claim.