A portion of Company A's plan is spun off into a new plan for a new Company B. Company B then restates its plan on a new document by a new provider. It makes sense that the beneficiary designations from Company A's plan would continue over to Company B's plan and would continue through the restatement, but I cannot find legal authority for that argument. Is the beneficiary designation a protected benefit? How do I get a designation to stick for assets that were transferred over from Company A's plan as well as assets accruing under Company B's plan?

Can you find authority to contradict it?

Did the restated document alter in any way the definition of "beneficiary"? If so, was it substantive? If so, does that cause you to think existing designations would conflict with the document?

Likely there is change in wording, but not necessarily in a significant way. Could this be an opportunity to ask plan participants to review beneficiary designations and update as needed?

No, I cannot find any legal authority to contradict it either.

The things that have changed are the default provisions for a beneficiary and the forms used under the new plan document. In this case we have individuals who did designate beneficiaries under Company A's plan, so I'm hoping that those designations still follow through.

It would be a great opportunity to get participants to update designations. Unfortunately, we have a few participants who have died, so we're anticipating some questions (read nasty litigation) as to whether the designations will still hold up.

Thanks.