Employee Benefits Developments - February 2015

by Hodgson Russ LLP
Contact

ERISA § 4062(e) Liability Enforcement Returns--Applicable to Defined Benefit Plans and Succession of Operations at Facility. The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) § 4062(e) originally imposed liability when there was a cessation of operations at a facility and more than 20 percent of the employees covered by the employer’s defined benefit plan lost their employment. Because the prior law provided for a very large liability amount, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) in 2012 adopted an enforcement policy under which the PBGC would not enforce the liability in cases where there were fewer than 100 participants in the defined benefit plan or the employer was financially sound. Reflecting similar concerns in 2014, the PBGC announced a moratorium on all enforcement until the end of 2014.

As part of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act of 2015, ERISA § 4062(e) was amended. Because of that amendment, the PBGC published a notice in which it announced it is ending its moratorium on enforcement, is examining the provisions of the amended law, and will provide further guidance and information as appropriate. In the notice, the PBGC provided a short explanation of the provisions of amended ERISA § 4062(e), which included the following: 

  • Consistent with the PBGC 2012 enforcement policy, plans with fewer than 100 participants are exempt from liability.
  • If the defined benefit plan is better than 90 percent funded, determined on the method used for purposes of paying PBGC premiums, there is also an exemption.
  • Liability is triggered when the cessation of operation results in more than a 15 percent reduction in the total number of employees that participate in any employee plan, including defined contributions and 401(k) plans. This is a major change from prior law, which only looked at those employees covered under the defined benefit plan. 
  • The liability generally does not have to be paid as quickly as under prior law. If liability exists, the employer may contribute to the plan, in seven annual installments, an amount equal to one-seventh of the unfunded vested benefits multiplied by the percentage reduction in active participants.
  • The PBGC will continue its prior enforcement policy, which means it will not enforce the liability against employers that are financially sound. 
  • No reporting is required if the plan is exempt under the fewer-than-100-participants rule or the better than 90 percent-funded rule. 

The provisions of the new law apply to cessation of operations occurring on or after December 16, 2014. PBGC Important Changes to ERISA Section 4062(e), http://www.pbgc.gov/about/faq/pg/important-changes-to-erisa-section-4062(e).html 

Another Church Plan Decision in Favor of Church Plan Opponents. In a recent decision handed down by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, the court ruled that a pension plan maintained by a health care system that is affiliated with two Christian denominations is not a church plan within the meaning of ERISA, because the plan was not established by a church. Stapleton v. Advocate Health Care Network & Subsidiaries (N.D. Ill., December 2014). The decision by the Illinois federal district court is consistent with two prior decisions handed down by federal district courts in California and New Jersey. Rollins v. Dignity Health, (N.D. Ca. 2013) and; Kaplan v. St. Peter’s Health Care Sys. (D.N.J., 2014). On the other hand, federal district courts in Michigan and Colorado have ruled that pension plans established and maintained by religiously affiliated employers can qualify as church plans. Overall v. Ascension Health (E.D., Mich. 2014; Medina v. Catholic Health Initiatives (D. Colo. 2014). Just a few days ago, a federal district court in Maryland sided with Trinity Health Corporation, ruling that an organization associated with a church can establish a church plan. Lann v. Trinity Health Corp., (D. Md., 2015). The decisional law is now even at three for and three against.

“Church Plan” Defined

The requirements of ERISA do not apply to employee benefit plans that qualify as “church plans” within the meaning of the statute. 

Employers that sponsor church plans, and the employees who manage and administer them, are not required to comply with ERISA’s fiduciary standards; maintain ERISA-compliant plan documents and summary plan descriptions (SPDs); file annual reports (5500s) with the Office of the Secretary of Labor (5500s); distribute summary annual reports; or resolve denied benefit claims in accordance with ERISA claims and appeal procedures. 

In addition, an employer that maintains a defined benefit pension plan that qualifies as a church plan is not required to ensure that the plan is funded in accordance with ERISA’s funding standard. It is this requirement—ERISA’s funding requirement—that has fueled the controversy as the pension plans at issue in these cases are allegedly underfunded.

An employee benefit plan is a church plan if the plan is established and maintained:

  • By a church, which is exempt from tax under section 501 of the Internal Revenue Code,
  • For the benefit of employees of the church.

Employees of an employer that is exempt from tax under section 501 of the Internal Revenue Code are deemed to be church employees if the employer is controlled by or associated with a church. An employer is “associated with” a church if it shares common religious bonds and convictions with that church.

Importantly, ERISA provides that a plan established and maintained by a church includes a plan maintained by an organization that is not a church if two requirements are satisfied:

  • The organization has, as its principle purpose or function, the administration or funding of a plan for the employees of a church or a convention or association of churches; and
  • The organization is controlled by or associated with a church.

In a long line of letter rulings, the IRS has consistently taken the position that a plan maintained by a religiously affiliated employer, like Advocate Health Care Network (Advocate), can qualify as a church plan under this ERISA provision so long as the plan is administered by an organization (e.g., a committee or trust) that is controlled by the religiously affiliated employer that sponsors the plan.

The Complaint Against Advocate Health Care Network

In this case, current and former employees of Advocate sued, alleging that Advocate has not funded and otherwise maintained its defined benefit pension plan according to ERISA standards. Advocate operates 12 hospitals and more than 250 other inpatient and outpatient healthcare locations across northern and central Illinois, and was formed in 1995 as a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation. Advocate is affiliated with the United Church of Christ and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, but is not owned by either church. The pension plan at issue was established by Advocate, which does not claim to be a church.

The Court’s Ruling in Advocate

The court’s ruling, if not its rationale, it easy to articulate: The pension plan maintained by Advocate is not a church plan because a plan cannot be a church plan under ERISA’s definition unless it is established by a church and Advocate, the entity that established the plan, is not a church. 

The court rejected Advocate’s argument that a plan maintained by an organization that is not a church can qualify as a church plan if the organization is associated with a church. In the court’s view, the fact that a religiously affiliated, non-church entity can maintain a church plan does not override the requirement that the plan be established by a church.

As noted, the court’s construction of the statute is at odds with countless DOL advisory opinions and IRS private letter rulings and three recent federal district court rulings that have extended church plan status to plans established by employers that were not themselves churches, if the organization that established the plan was associated with a church. 

Conclusion

Religiously affiliated employers that sponsor church plans should stay abreast of developments in the church plan case law, and should consider conducting a careful review of their plans to identify the issues that would arise if the law resolves in favor of the interpretation adopted by the court in Advocate which, as noted, has been adopted by two other courts. If an employer has an IRS letter ruling or DOL advisory opinion confirming the church plan status of the employer’s plans, the employer should be sure that its plans are structured and administered in strict compliance with the facts represented in the letter ruling or advisory opinion. Church plan sponsors that have not obtained a ruling from the IRS or DOL should review the applicable guidance and make any necessary modifications to the structure and operation of the plans.

COBRA Notice Failure Is a Fiduciary Breach. The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland recently granted summary judgment to two plaintiffs who claimed their former employer breached its fiduciary duty by failing to provide timely COBRA notices. In this case, the plaintiffs were suspended without pay for a period of several months prior to the termination of their employment. Although their health plan coverage continued during their suspension, the employer ceased subsidizing the cost of their monthly premiums. The employer did not notify the plaintiffs that they were responsible for the full cost of their health insurance premiums. Several months later, when the plaintiffs were ultimately terminated and COBRA notices were furnished, the plaintiffs were given invoices for the full cost of coverage provided during their suspensions. Under the COBRA regulations, a plan administrator generally must notify qualified beneficiaries of their COBRA rights within 44 days of a qualifying event, such as a termination of employment or a reduction of hours that results in a loss of coverage. Here, the plaintiffs incurred a qualifying event when they were suspended because their hours were reduced to zero. Furthermore, the COBRA regulations broadly define a “loss of coverage” to include “any increase in the premium contribution that must be paid by a covered employee….” As such, the court ruled that the plan administrator breached its fiduciary duty by not providing the plaintiffs with their COBRA notices within 44 days from the date they were suspended and required to pay more to maintain their health coverage. The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and declared that all invoices for coverage provided to plaintiffs during the period of their suspension were null and void. To avoid making similar errors, plan administrators should take a moment to review their leave of absence procedures to ensure that they are properly coordinated with their COBRA notice obligations. Green v. Balt. City Bd. Of Sch. Comm’rs (D. Md., 2015)

State Law Claims to Survivor Benefits Preempted by ERISA. Affirming a lower court decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that  a pension plan participant may not use a Texas state law to strip his ex-wife of her vested interest in a survivor annuity under the plan. Sometime prior to his retirement, the participant in this case designated his wife as the beneficiary of a 100-percent qualified joint and survivor annuity in his company pension plan benefit. On his retirement in 1994, the participant began receiving monthly retirement benefits under the plan, and the survivor annuity irrevocably vested in his wife. When the parties divorced eight years later, the divorce decree awarded the husband all rights in his pension plan. One year later he remarried and sought to designate his new wife as the survivor annuity beneficiary. Despite the objections of his first wife, who argued that she had consented to the divorce decree only because she believed that the survivor annuity was her separate property, the state court entered a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) divesting the first wife of all ownership interests in the survivor annuity. To prevent the order from requiring increased benefits beyond the original actuarial estimates, the annuity benefits would continue to be based upon the first wife’s life expectancy. 

In 2005, the company terminated its pension plan and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) became the plan’s trustee. As part of its independent review of plan benefits, the PBGC determined that the purported QDRO was invalid and that the first wife was the proper beneficiary of the survivor annuity. The PBGC determined that the order was not a valid QDRO because it would require the plan to provide a hybrid form of benefit not otherwise provided under the plan—that is, an annuity for the duration of the second wife’s life, rather than for the first wife’s life. Second,  the PBGC determined that ERISA mandated that the first wife’s right to the survivor annuity irrevocably vested on the day the participant retired, unless she waived that right within 90 days of the annuity start date. Since she had not waived her rights, the state court order could not transfer her right to the survivor benefit to the new wife. 

Following a failed administrative appeal, the participant filed suit in district court, seeking to overturn the PBGC decision. The participant also brought a state law claim that, in any event, he had equitable title to the survivor benefits under Texas law and that any payments his first wife might receive under the annuity must be held in constructive trust for distribution in accordance with his wishes. The district court ruled in favor of the first wife, finding that the PBGC decision was both reasonable and amply supported by the administrative record and that the state-law claims were preempted by ERISA. The court emphasized that the claims were "nothing more than an effort to make an end-run around ERISA’s statutory prescription” and would permit the participant “to achieve what [he] otherwise cannot accomplish under the statute itself – to divest [his first wife] of the survivor annuity benefit paid to her by PBGC.”

On appeal, the participant moved to dismiss PBGC from the case, effectively conceding that under ERISA, the survivor annuity belongs to his first wife. Focusing his appeal on the state-law claims, the participant sought a declaration that any survivor benefit payments his first wife might receive must be held in a constructive trust, to be assigned to a different beneficiary of his choosing. Noting that “this case involves an effort by a plan participant to obtain an interest in undistributed plan benefits,” the D.C. Circuit held that, absent a QDRO and compliance with ERISA’s strict waiver provisions for survivor annuities, the participant may not use state law for that purpose. In affirming the decision of the lower court, however, the D.C. Circuit also stressed that the opinion does not address “how ERISA might affect an effort by a plan participant to use state law to obtain an interest in benefits after distribution to the beneficiary.” Vanderkam v. Vanderkam (D.C. Cir. 2015)

Ninth Circuit: Beneficiary Designation Forms Were Not “Plan Documents.” Reversing a district court summary judgment, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that beneficiary designation forms were not “plan documents” governing the plan administrator’s award of ERISA plan benefits. The case involved a retiree who was covered by his former employer’s ERISA plans. When he retired, his spouse was his designated beneficiary. Following his divorce in 2006, the retiree attempted to change his beneficiary designation from his ex-wife to his son from an earlier marriage. He did so by contacting the employer telephonically on multiple occasions between July 2007 and January 2011, and indicating to the employer that he wanted his son to be his beneficiary.

Following each telephone conversation with his former employer, the retiree received, but did not sign and return, beneficiary designation forms requesting that he confirm his selection of his son as beneficiary. The retiree died in 2011, after which his son and the spouse who he divorced in 2006 each contacted the employer to assert claims for the death benefits payable under the ERISA plans. The fiduciaries for the plans did not resolve the competing claims for the death benefits, and instead interpleaded the ex-wife and the son (i.e., requested a judicial determination) in federal district court. The ex-wife moved for summary judgment, arguing that because the participant (i.e., her ex-husband) had failed to return the completed designation forms and did not properly designate the son as the beneficiary. The district court granted the ex-wife’s motion for summary judgment. The son appealed that decision.

In granting summary judgment in favor of the ex-wife, the district court concluded that the beneficiary designation forms were “plan documents” that the participant/retiree needed to sign and return to effectuate a change to his beneficiary designation. The Ninth Circuit disagreed and reversed the district court’s summary judgment. The court held that because beneficiary forms do not “provide information as to where the participant stands with respect to the plan” (instead, “they simply confirm the participant’s attempt to change his designated beneficiary”), those forms are not “plan documents” governing an award of benefits under the plan. The Ninth Circuit also pointed out that none of the actual plan documents incorporate the beneficiary designation forms by reference.

In its ruling, the Ninth Circuit also rejected the ex-wife’s argument that the plan administrator for the ERISA plans exercised discretion by sending the beneficiary designation forms to the participant/retiree, and was within its authority to require their use. The court held that the plan administrator for each plan, by filing the interpleader action, effectively declined to exercise any discretion in determining whether the retiree’s telephonic designation of his son as beneficiary was valid under the plan.

Because there apparently was nothing explicit in the governing plan documents preventing unmarried participants from designating beneficiaries by telephone call, and because the summary plan descriptions for both plans instruct unmarried participants to call the plan sponsor or to visit the plan sponsor’s website to change or complete a beneficiary designation, and because the plan documents did not specifically require any sort of written designation for unmarried participants, the court concluded that a reasonable trier of fact could determine that the participant/retiree intended to change his beneficiary to his son, and that his phone calls to the plan sponsor constituted substantial compliance with the governing plan documents’ requirements for changing his beneficiary designation. For those reasons, the court did not uphold the district court’s grant of summary judgment for the ex-wife. Becker v. Williams (9th Cir. 2015)

PBGC Position on Post-Termination PPA Amendments Upheld. The Pension Protection Act of 2006 (PPA) amended the actuarial assumptions that may be used by a qualified retirement plan in calculating the minimum present value of a participant’s benefit under a plan. The revised actuarial assumptions could result in smaller lump sum distributions to participants than would have been made under the pre-PPA rules. As a result, the PPA provided relief from the anti-cutback rule that exists under both ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code if certain conditions were met.

In two recent cases, employers sponsoring qualified pension plans terminated the pension plans as of a date before the plans were amended to include the revised PPA actuarial assumptions. In each instance, the plan was amended for the PPA within months after the termination date selected by the plan sponsor, but before plan benefits were distributed to participants. When plan benefits were distributed upon the plans’ termination, the PPA actuarial assumptions were used for lump sum distributions.

The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) determined that the use of the PPA actuarial assumptions violated its regulations relating to the termination of single-employer pension plans. Specifically, the PBGC determined that use of the PPA actuarial assumptions violated its rule that a participant’s benefits are determined under the plan provisions in effect on the plan’s termination date, except that a post-termination amendment that does not decrease a participant’s benefit may be given effect. Under its rule, the PBGC determined that the plans had not been amended for the PPA as of their termination date and, since the PPA amendments resulted in a decrease in participants’ plan benefits, the amendments would not be given effect. Thus, participants who elected to receive benefits in the form of a lump sum distribution were entitled to additional amounts from the plan sponsors.

On judicial review, the plan sponsors argued that an exception under the PBGC’s rule for post-termination amendments that are required to maintain a plan’s qualified tax status allowed the PPA amendment to be effective. The courts disagreed, holding that while the PPA permitted the plan amendments, there was nothing that prohibited the plans from providing greater benefits and, therefore, the decrease was not necessary to maintain the plans’ qualified tax status.

In one of the cases, the plan sponsor also argued that, because the PPA amendment was made effective as of a date before the plan termination date, the amendment was part of the plan as of the plan termination date. The court rejected this argument, holding that the PBGC’s interpretation of its regulation that an amendment must actually be adopted before the plan’s termination date was not arbitrary or capricious and, therefore, was entitled to judicial deference.  Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. v. Kentucky Bancshares, Inc. (6th Cir. 2015); Royal Oak Enterprises, LLC v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. (D.D.C. 2015)

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Hodgson Russ LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Hodgson Russ LLP
Contact
more
less

Hodgson Russ LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide

JD Supra Privacy Policy

Updated: May 25, 2018:

JD Supra is a legal publishing service that connects experts and their content with broader audiences of professionals, journalists and associations.

This Privacy Policy describes how JD Supra, LLC ("JD Supra" or "we," "us," or "our") collects, uses and shares personal data collected from visitors to our website (located at www.jdsupra.com) (our "Website") who view only publicly-available content as well as subscribers to our services (such as our email digests or author tools)(our "Services"). By using our Website and registering for one of our Services, you are agreeing to the terms of this Privacy Policy.

Please note that if you subscribe to one of our Services, you can make choices about how we collect, use and share your information through our Privacy Center under the "My Account" dashboard (available if you are logged into your JD Supra account).

Collection of Information

Registration Information. When you register with JD Supra for our Website and Services, either as an author or as a subscriber, you will be asked to provide identifying information to create your JD Supra account ("Registration Data"), such as your:

  • Email
  • First Name
  • Last Name
  • Company Name
  • Company Industry
  • Title
  • Country

Other Information: We also collect other information you may voluntarily provide. This may include content you provide for publication. We may also receive your communications with others through our Website and Services (such as contacting an author through our Website) or communications directly with us (such as through email, feedback or other forms or social media). If you are a subscribed user, we will also collect your user preferences, such as the types of articles you would like to read.

Information from third parties (such as, from your employer or LinkedIn): We may also receive information about you from third party sources. For example, your employer may provide your information to us, such as in connection with an article submitted by your employer for publication. If you choose to use LinkedIn to subscribe to our Website and Services, we also collect information related to your LinkedIn account and profile.

Your interactions with our Website and Services: As is true of most websites, we gather certain information automatically. This information includes IP addresses, browser type, Internet service provider (ISP), referring/exit pages, operating system, date/time stamp and clickstream data. We use this information to analyze trends, to administer the Website and our Services, to improve the content and performance of our Website and Services, and to track users' movements around the site. We may also link this automatically-collected data to personal information, for example, to inform authors about who has read their articles. Some of this data is collected through information sent by your web browser. We also use cookies and other tracking technologies to collect this information. To learn more about cookies and other tracking technologies that JD Supra may use on our Website and Services please see our "Cookies Guide" page.

How do we use this information?

We use the information and data we collect principally in order to provide our Website and Services. More specifically, we may use your personal information to:

  • Operate our Website and Services and publish content;
  • Distribute content to you in accordance with your preferences as well as to provide other notifications to you (for example, updates about our policies and terms);
  • Measure readership and usage of the Website and Services;
  • Communicate with you regarding your questions and requests;
  • Authenticate users and to provide for the safety and security of our Website and Services;
  • Conduct research and similar activities to improve our Website and Services; and
  • Comply with our legal and regulatory responsibilities and to enforce our rights.

How is your information shared?

  • Content and other public information (such as an author profile) is shared on our Website and Services, including via email digests and social media feeds, and is accessible to the general public.
  • If you choose to use our Website and Services to communicate directly with a company or individual, such communication may be shared accordingly.
  • Readership information is provided to publishing law firms and authors of content to give them insight into their readership and to help them to improve their content.
  • Our Website may offer you the opportunity to share information through our Website, such as through Facebook's "Like" or Twitter's "Tweet" button. We offer this functionality to help generate interest in our Website and content and to permit you to recommend content to your contacts. You should be aware that sharing through such functionality may result in information being collected by the applicable social media network and possibly being made publicly available (for example, through a search engine). Any such information collection would be subject to such third party social media network's privacy policy.
  • Your information may also be shared to parties who support our business, such as professional advisors as well as web-hosting providers, analytics providers and other information technology providers.
  • Any court, governmental authority, law enforcement agency or other third party where we believe disclosure is necessary to comply with a legal or regulatory obligation, or otherwise to protect our rights, the rights of any third party or individuals' personal safety, or to detect, prevent, or otherwise address fraud, security or safety issues.
  • To our affiliated entities and in connection with the sale, assignment or other transfer of our company or our business.

How We Protect Your Information

JD Supra takes reasonable and appropriate precautions to insure that user information is protected from loss, misuse and unauthorized access, disclosure, alteration and destruction. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. You should keep in mind that no Internet transmission is ever 100% secure or error-free. Where you use log-in credentials (usernames, passwords) on our Website, please remember that it is your responsibility to safeguard them. If you believe that your log-in credentials have been compromised, please contact us at privacy@jdsupra.com.

Children's Information

Our Website and Services are not directed at children under the age of 16 and we do not knowingly collect personal information from children under the age of 16 through our Website and/or Services. If you have reason to believe that a child under the age of 16 has provided personal information to us, please contact us, and we will endeavor to delete that information from our databases.

Links to Other Websites

Our Website and Services may contain links to other websites. The operators of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using our Website or Services and click a link to another site, you will leave our Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We are not responsible for the data collection and use practices of such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of our Website and Services and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Information for EU and Swiss Residents

JD Supra's principal place of business is in the United States. By subscribing to our website, you expressly consent to your information being processed in the United States.

  • Our Legal Basis for Processing: Generally, we rely on our legitimate interests in order to process your personal information. For example, we rely on this legal ground if we use your personal information to manage your Registration Data and administer our relationship with you; to deliver our Website and Services; understand and improve our Website and Services; report reader analytics to our authors; to personalize your experience on our Website and Services; and where necessary to protect or defend our or another's rights or property, or to detect, prevent, or otherwise address fraud, security, safety or privacy issues. Please see Article 6(1)(f) of the E.U. General Data Protection Regulation ("GDPR") In addition, there may be other situations where other grounds for processing may exist, such as where processing is a result of legal requirements (GDPR Article 6(1)(c)) or for reasons of public interest (GDPR Article 6(1)(e)). Please see the "Your Rights" section of this Privacy Policy immediately below for more information about how you may request that we limit or refrain from processing your personal information.
  • Your Rights
    • Right of Access/Portability: You can ask to review details about the information we hold about you and how that information has been used and disclosed. Note that we may request to verify your identification before fulfilling your request. You can also request that your personal information is provided to you in a commonly used electronic format so that you can share it with other organizations.
    • Right to Correct Information: You may ask that we make corrections to any information we hold, if you believe such correction to be necessary.
    • Right to Restrict Our Processing or Erasure of Information: You also have the right in certain circumstances to ask us to restrict processing of your personal information or to erase your personal information. Where you have consented to our use of your personal information, you can withdraw your consent at any time.

You can make a request to exercise any of these rights by emailing us at privacy@jdsupra.com or by writing to us at:

Privacy Officer
JD Supra, LLC
10 Liberty Ship Way, Suite 300
Sausalito, California 94965

You can also manage your profile and subscriptions through our Privacy Center under the "My Account" dashboard.

We will make all practical efforts to respect your wishes. There may be times, however, where we are not able to fulfill your request, for example, if applicable law prohibits our compliance. Please note that JD Supra does not use "automatic decision making" or "profiling" as those terms are defined in the GDPR.

  • Timeframe for retaining your personal information: We will retain your personal information in a form that identifies you only for as long as it serves the purpose(s) for which it was initially collected as stated in this Privacy Policy, or subsequently authorized. We may continue processing your personal information for longer periods, but only for the time and to the extent such processing reasonably serves the purposes of archiving in the public interest, journalism, literature and art, scientific or historical research and statistical analysis, and subject to the protection of this Privacy Policy. For example, if you are an author, your personal information may continue to be published in connection with your article indefinitely. When we have no ongoing legitimate business need to process your personal information, we will either delete or anonymize it, or, if this is not possible (for example, because your personal information has been stored in backup archives), then we will securely store your personal information and isolate it from any further processing until deletion is possible.
  • Onward Transfer to Third Parties: As noted in the "How We Share Your Data" Section above, JD Supra may share your information with third parties. When JD Supra discloses your personal information to third parties, we have ensured that such third parties have either certified under the EU-U.S. or Swiss Privacy Shield Framework and will process all personal data received from EU member states/Switzerland in reliance on the applicable Privacy Shield Framework or that they have been subjected to strict contractual provisions in their contract with us to guarantee an adequate level of data protection for your data.

California Privacy Rights

Pursuant to Section 1798.83 of the California Civil Code, our customers who are California residents have the right to request certain information regarding our disclosure of personal information to third parties for their direct marketing purposes.

You can make a request for this information by emailing us at privacy@jdsupra.com or by writing to us at:

Privacy Officer
JD Supra, LLC
10 Liberty Ship Way, Suite 300
Sausalito, California 94965

Some browsers have incorporated a Do Not Track (DNT) feature. These features, when turned on, send a signal that you prefer that the website you are visiting not collect and use data regarding your online searching and browsing activities. As there is not yet a common understanding on how to interpret the DNT signal, we currently do not respond to DNT signals on our site.

Access/Correct/Update/Delete Personal Information

For non-EU/Swiss residents, if you would like to know what personal information we have about you, you can send an e-mail to privacy@jdsupra.com. We will be in contact with you (by mail or otherwise) to verify your identity and provide you the information you request. We will respond within 30 days to your request for access to your personal information. In some cases, we may not be able to remove your personal information, in which case we will let you know if we are unable to do so and why. If you would like to correct or update your personal information, you can manage your profile and subscriptions through our Privacy Center under the "My Account" dashboard. If you would like to delete your account or remove your information from our Website and Services, send an e-mail to privacy@jdsupra.com.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Privacy Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our Privacy Policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use our Website and Services following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this Privacy Policy, the practices of this site, your dealings with our Website or Services, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: privacy@jdsupra.com.

JD Supra Cookie Guide

As with many websites, JD Supra's website (located at www.jdsupra.com) (our "Website") and our services (such as our email article digests)(our "Services") use a standard technology called a "cookie" and other similar technologies (such as, pixels and web beacons), which are small data files that are transferred to your computer when you use our Website and Services. These technologies automatically identify your browser whenever you interact with our Website and Services.

How We Use Cookies and Other Tracking Technologies

We use cookies and other tracking technologies to:

  1. Improve the user experience on our Website and Services;
  2. Store the authorization token that users receive when they login to the private areas of our Website. This token is specific to a user's login session and requires a valid username and password to obtain. It is required to access the user's profile information, subscriptions, and analytics;
  3. Track anonymous site usage; and
  4. Permit connectivity with social media networks to permit content sharing.

There are different types of cookies and other technologies used our Website, notably:

  • "Session cookies" - These cookies only last as long as your online session, and disappear from your computer or device when you close your browser (like Internet Explorer, Google Chrome or Safari).
  • "Persistent cookies" - These cookies stay on your computer or device after your browser has been closed and last for a time specified in the cookie. We use persistent cookies when we need to know who you are for more than one browsing session. For example, we use them to remember your preferences for the next time you visit.
  • "Web Beacons/Pixels" - Some of our web pages and emails may also contain small electronic images known as web beacons, clear GIFs or single-pixel GIFs. These images are placed on a web page or email and typically work in conjunction with cookies to collect data. We use these images to identify our users and user behavior, such as counting the number of users who have visited a web page or acted upon one of our email digests.

JD Supra Cookies. We place our own cookies on your computer to track certain information about you while you are using our Website and Services. For example, we place a session cookie on your computer each time you visit our Website. We use these cookies to allow you to log-in to your subscriber account. In addition, through these cookies we are able to collect information about how you use the Website, including what browser you may be using, your IP address, and the URL address you came from upon visiting our Website and the URL you next visit (even if those URLs are not on our Website). We also utilize email web beacons to monitor whether our emails are being delivered and read. We also use these tools to help deliver reader analytics to our authors to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

Analytics/Performance Cookies. JD Supra also uses the following analytic tools to help us analyze the performance of our Website and Services as well as how visitors use our Website and Services:

  • HubSpot - For more information about HubSpot cookies, please visit legal.hubspot.com/privacy-policy.
  • New Relic - For more information on New Relic cookies, please visit www.newrelic.com/privacy.
  • Google Analytics - For more information on Google Analytics cookies, visit www.google.com/policies. To opt-out of being tracked by Google Analytics across all websites visit http://tools.google.com/dlpage/gaoptout. This will allow you to download and install a Google Analytics cookie-free web browser.

Facebook, Twitter and other Social Network Cookies. Our content pages allow you to share content appearing on our Website and Services to your social media accounts through the "Like," "Tweet," or similar buttons displayed on such pages. To accomplish this Service, we embed code that such third party social networks provide and that we do not control. These buttons know that you are logged in to your social network account and therefore such social networks could also know that you are viewing the JD Supra Website.

Controlling and Deleting Cookies

If you would like to change how a browser uses cookies, including blocking or deleting cookies from the JD Supra Website and Services you can do so by changing the settings in your web browser. To control cookies, most browsers allow you to either accept or reject all cookies, only accept certain types of cookies, or prompt you every time a site wishes to save a cookie. It's also easy to delete cookies that are already saved on your device by a browser.

The processes for controlling and deleting cookies vary depending on which browser you use. To find out how to do so with a particular browser, you can use your browser's "Help" function or alternatively, you can visit http://www.aboutcookies.org which explains, step-by-step, how to control and delete cookies in most browsers.

Updates to This Policy

We may update this cookie policy and our Privacy Policy from time-to-time, particularly as technology changes. You can always check this page for the latest version. We may also notify you of changes to our privacy policy by email.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about how we use cookies and other tracking technologies, please contact us at: privacy@jdsupra.com.

- hide

This website uses cookies to improve user experience, track anonymous site usage, store authorization tokens and permit sharing on social media networks. By continuing to browse this website you accept the use of cookies. Click here to read more about how we use cookies.