Death Care Law Blog : Kansas Death Care and Preneed Lawyer & Attorney : Stalter Legal Services Law Firm : Funeral Law, Elder Law : Kansas City

It may be a mere coincidence, but the $9.7 million demand made by Comptroller Dan Hynes upon the IFDA is approximately 25% of the $39 million dollar “deficit” that the master trust had accrued by 2006. In applying the letter of the law, the Comptroller has rejected the IFDA approach of crediting individual preneed accounts with a fixed rate of growth. Instead, the Comptroller has taken the position that the 25% administration fee must be based on actual trust income, and the IFDA has failed to adequately demonstrate what the trust has earned.

As more information is released about the master trust, the more it appears that the IFDA structured the master trust to simulate a defined benefit pension plan. By establishing a fixed rate of return acceptable to funeral providers, the IFDA could apply actuarial studies to project the trust’s liability at future dates (and invest accordingly).

A generation ago, the defined benefit plan was the principal method for funding retirement benefits. Today, however, the 401K plan has replaced the defined benefit plan as the retirement vehicle of choice. Defined benefit plans have proven too costly.

If some twenty years ago the IFDA in fact chose to emulate the defined benefit model, that decision was flawed from the start. Defined benefit plans are subject to extensive rules and procedures established by ERISA. Investments, allocations, related party transactions, expenses and taxes are all subject to strict rules and tests. There are no comparable laws and regulations for preneed trusts. Without similar guidelines and supervision, the IFDA appears to have broken most of the ERISA rules.

When funeral directors fault the Comptroller for not having acted sooner to avoid the trust’s decline in value, they are failing to understand that a substantial portion of the amount written down prior to 2008 represents an accounting change from the defined benefit ‘value’ to the trust’s current approximate market value. There was nothing the Comptroller could have done to prevent that ‘deficit’ from being written down.

With regard to the trust’s value decline since 2007, the key man insurance held by the trust poses a thorny problem. The insurance policies have a mortality charge that must be satisfied from a reserve that is probably invested in a volatile mix of fixed income and equity assets. Surrendering the policies requires the trust to address certain tax penalties and policy fees, unless of course, the policies are rescinded or fail to constitute insurance.

Where does this leave the IFDA and the Comptroller’s $9.7 million claim?

Unless the IFDA has assets (including its museum of funeral customs) sufficient to pay the claim, it will have to earn its way out of this hole. As with most state associations, the master trust represents its main source of revenue. Administrative fees charged to members range from 75 basis points for large trusts to 125 basis points for smaller trusts. Besides individual account administration, these fees must also cover fees for the fiduciary, asset management and tax administration.

In a prior press release, the Illinois Secretary of State put the IFDA trust value at $200 million. For a trust this large, account administration could conceivably receive a fee of 35 to 50 basis points. Assuming the IFDA’s costs to provide such services were $250,000, the association could net $750,000 per year. If the IFDA could apply half of that fee to the Comptroller’s claim, the association is still looking at a very long row to hoe.

But the Comptroller has reasons to consider this alternative. If the claim should prove the final straw that breaks the association, the IFDA master trust may have to be broken apart and transferred to new trusts established by the individual members. This is what happened a few years ago with the Minnesota master trust. The difference with the IFDA situation is that hundreds of members are involved instead of dozens. It would be the Comptroller that must supervise hundreds of trusts instead of a single trust.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In naming the IFDA officers and board of directors as individual defendants in their lawsuit, the Calvert group sought to make these individuals accountable for management of the association’s master trust.  Members of a board of directors have a duty to act in the best interests of the organization.  Defenses against personal liability are afforded the board member so long as he/she has acted reasonably, diligently and in good faith, even when the organization suffers a catastrophic loss as a result of the board’s decisions.  However, what defenses were afforded the IFDA board members are now compromised by the lawsuit filed by the Association’s liability carrier, and the outcome could have a chilling effect on new board members’ efforts to do the right thing.

Funeral Service Insider and Chicago Tribune have reported a limited number of facts, but the liability carrier seems to be challenging coverage of the IFDA for the Association’s failure to provide timely notice of “the claim”. Federal Insurance Company cites the June 21, 2006 letter from the Illinois Comptroller’s office as the event that gave rise to the claim.

The IFDA has valid issues to raise in opposition to the carrier’s assertions, but litigation moves slowly.  In the meantime, prospective candidates to the IFDA board of directors must weigh their personal exposure to this situation.  Doing the right thing may not be enough for some who have been injured by the master trust's decline in value.

Other state associations should take from this latest IFDA development the need to review their liability insurance policies and to timely report all potential claims.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Illinois and Missouri have more in common than they may realize. Consumers and funeral directors are blaming state regulators for their current preneed problems. Looking to avoid that hot seat, regulators have been stating their excuses/defenses. If legislators are to correct the flaws in their state’s preneed oversight, they need to put partisan politics aside and objectively assess those excuses.

In response to criticism about the IFDA master trust, the Illinois Comptroller’s office states: we don’t regulate trusts. With regard to preneed audits, the Comptroller follows the money from the consumer to the funeral home and into the IFDA trust. Once there, the Comptroller did not provide an extensive review of the trust’s activities. (Summary, it’s not my job to provide oversight once the funds make it to trust.)

The chink in the Comptroller’s IFDA armor is that the consumer funds never made it into a corporate trustee’s hands. The Comptroller’s excuse (we thought they had a corporate fiduciary) has funeral directors boiling. Rightfully so. While news reports and funeral homes have garbled the legal issues, the Comptroller’s function was to license preneed sellers, and for the IFDA, that meant the responsibility to ensure the organization had an appropriate fiduciary.

Missouri’s Division of Professional Registration and State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors have received the same type of criticism with regard to the NPS collapse. Those regulators have appropriately countered with explanations about how Chapter 436 tied their hands. Legislators and state agencies sponsored meetings last summer to obtain recommendations for improving Missouri’s preneed oversight. Those recommendations included the decision to continue the State Board’s jurisdiction over the preneed and to provide that entity greater licensing and oversight authorities.

Preneed regulation should begin with the licensing/registration of who may sell preneed. (I beg to differ with Ill. State Rep. Dan Brady, and those who assert preneed should only be sold by licensed funeral directors.) But that issue aside, who should provide oversight once the consumer’s funds are deposited to trust? I tend to agree with the Comptroller’s office that a state’s financial regulator is better suited for this job. However, there are ‘gaps’ to that recommendation. (State banking regulators do not have express jurisdiction over fiduciary institutions that derive their powers from a charter granted by the Office of Thrift Supervision or the Office of Comptroller of the Currency.)

While preneed licensing and payment administration oversight should be placed with a state’s agency charged with establishing minimum competency standards, oversight of the preneed trust should be with the state’s banking regulator. Federal preemption issues could be eliminated by statutory provisions that require the seller’s trustee to consent to limited jurisdiction as a condition to accepting the account. Preneed is too complex, too big, for a single state agency.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A bank client recently asked that I provide some standard of accountability for administration provided to a master preneed trust. As I struggle to provide the client a concise answer, I can’t help but to think that the issue will also become a crucial concern to consumers and funeral directors alike. As news reports reach consumers about the regulatory actions taken against the preneed programs maintained by NPS and by the Illinois Funeral Directors Association, families will begin to contact their funeral directors for reassurances about their preneed payments. Unfortunately, many state associations have not made accountability a priority, and their members may be ill prepared to respond to consumers’ concerns. 

For the independent funeral home, the state association can be a valuable resource to understanding the requirements imposed upon the profession by federal and state laws. As the preneed transaction grew in acceptance, most state associations formed master trusts to serve their member funeral homes.   These master trusts came to reflect not only the respective state’s preneed law, but also the attitudes and values of the association leadership.

Consumers need to appreciate that master preneed trusts are an important source of income to the sponsoring association. Because there are costs to providing contracts, administration, compliance, and asset management, the master trust provides the smaller funeral home the economies of scale necessary to reducing costs that would otherwise be prohibitive. However, the Illinois situation suggests that former association leadership may have exploited both members and consumers. While the association’s website is finally acknowledging the issue, the response lacks in terms of accountability. 

Getting back to my client’s question, how should accountability be measured for preneed administration from state to state? The diversity in the approaches taken by the state legislatures in regulating the preneed transaction is the single greatest hurdle to a comprehensive, national evaluation of preneed accountability. But perhaps transparency in terms of disclosures to both members and consumers would be one measure of accountability. On this standard, I would give kudos to the New Jersey Funeral Directors Association. It may be a sad reflection on the industry, but many funeral directors do not know what they are being charged for preneed services. The NJFDA provides this information for all to see.

If consumers do call for reassurances, funeral directors should have some basic information available to provide:

• How the preneed contract is funded (insurance vs. trust).
• The name of the insurance company or trustee.
• If the contract is trust funded, whether the trust holds deposit accounts, investments dictated by statute, diversified investments or insurance.
• Contact information for the person who can provide more information about the account.

When funeral directors begin to call for reassurances, association leadership should be prepared to provide the following information:

• The name and address of the trustee.
• The costs and expenses of the master trust.
• The master trust’s written investment policy.
• The fees paid to the trustee and account administrator.
• The taxes paid by the trust.
• A summary report of the trust’s performance and asset description.
• A disclosure of related party transactions (loans, discounts, service agreements, etc.)
• A summary of all trust expenses (excluding distributions for preneed contract performances and cancellations).
• The sponsorship fee paid the association. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks