COVID-19 has had significant impacts on all aspects of business. While employers are assessing how to handle immediate employee needs related to sick leave, family leave and benefits claims, employers should also consider the impact that changes in their workforce or economic conditions will have on their compensation plans and programs.
Click here to read
COVID-19 has had significant impacts on all aspects of business. While employers are assessing how to handle immediate employee needs related to sick leave, family leave and benefits claims, employers should also consider the impact that changes in their workforce or economic conditions will have on their compensation plans and programs.
Click here to read
Pay ratio disclosure rules requiring public companies to disclose the ratio between the annual total compensation of the median employee and the company’s principal executive officer are effective for fiscal years beginning on or after January 1, 2017. Accordingly, most public companies will need to comply with the rules beginning with the 2018 proxy season.
As we previously reported, in Sun Capital, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held in 2013 that a private investment fund, pursuant to the so-called “investment plus” test first articulated by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (the PBGC), was engaged in a “trade or business” under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA) and could therefore be part of a “controlled group” with one of its portfolio companies and potentially liable for the portfolio company’s underfunded pension liabilities. The Sun Capital case was remanded to the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts for further proceedings on whether a related private investment fund that invested in the portfolio company was also engaged in a “trade or business” and whether the two funds were under “common control” with the portfolio company. On March 28, 2016, the District Court determined that the second private investment fund was engaged in a “trade or business” and that the two funds’ co-investment in the portfolio company constituted a “partnership-in-fact” (resulting in the aggregation of their ownership interests in the portfolio company) that was also engaged in a “trade or business.” This determination resulted in both funds being treated as part of the portfolio company’s “controlled group.”