Opinion ID: 217197
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Establishment of the Lunde Electric 401(k) Plan

Text: Defendants assert that there was insufficient proof that the Plan contained a 401(k) feature. They argue that all ERISA plans contain an amendment procedure and that [t]hese . . . procedures, once set forth in a benefit plan, constrain the employer from amending the plan by other means. Winterrowd v. Am. Gen. Annuity Ins. Co., 321 F.3d 933, 937 (9th Cir.2003) (citing Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Schoonejongen, 514 U.S. 73, 85, 115 S.Ct. 1223, 131 L.Ed.2d 94 (1995)). According to Defendants' theory, the government had to introduce a properly executed version of the 1995 Amendment. Because the government does not have such a document, Defendants argue, the elective deferrals were actually discretionary employer contributions that do not become Plan Assets until they are remitted to the Plan. Defendants' argument regarding the validity of the 1995 Amendment is a red herring. Defendants were convicted only for their failure to remit deferrals after the 2002 Restatement. Even though the Form 5500s submitted to the IRS by Lunde Electric, the testimony of Brad Sommerfeld, and the email by attorney Braley all indicated that the 401(k) Plan existed before 2002, because Counts 17 and 18 concerned conduct that occurred after the 2002 Plan Restatement, we need only consider that document. The Eriksens do not dispute that the 1991 Plan was governed by Title I of ERISA, but contend that the evidence did not allow the conclusion that the Plan was thereafter amended or restated. Generally, whether a plan is subject to Title I of ERISA is an issue of fact to be decided by the jury, guided by applicable legal principles. United States v. Wofford, 560 F.3d 341, 347 (5th Cir.2009) (citing United States v. Helbling, 209 F.3d 226, 239 (3d Cir.2000)). The amendment procedures for any ERISA benefit plan must be specified by the employer and identify the persons with the authority to amend. Winterrowd, 321 F.3d at 937 (citing 29 U.S.C. § 1102(b)(3)). Here, the 1991 Plan, at Section 10.6, specified that amending the Plan shall only be by the written action of each and every Participating Employer and with the consent of the Trustee where such consent is necessary. To show such an amendment occurred by at least 2002, the government introduced a written copy of the 2002 Restatement, which included a 401(k) provision and was signed by Raymond as Employer and Trustee and by Sigmund as Trustee. The government also introduced addenda referring to the effective date of the Restatement as January 1, 2002, as well as a Consent to Corporate Action by Lunde Electric that approved the amended 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan. . . effective January 1, 2002. Any of these documents alone was competent evidence to allow the jury to conclude that the Plan had been restated in 2002 with a 401(k) plan. Accordingly, there was sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude that the 1991 Plan had been restated before the Eriksens retained their employees' elective deferrals in the Company's general account.