Photo of Christen Sewell

Christen Sewell

Christen Sewell counsels private and public companies and executives on all aspects of employee benefits and executive compensation.

Christen has a particular focus on benefits issues for start-ups and emerging growth companies, including:

  • Advising on the design, compliance, and administration of stock options and equity-based plans and arrangements.
  • Drafting and negotiating executive compensation arrangements, including, employment, retention, change in control, and separation agreements.

Christen also advises clients on:

  • Tax-qualified retirement plans
  • Health and welfare plans
  • Non-qualified deferred compensation arrangements
  • Bonus and incentive plans
  • Corporate transactions (M&A, joint ventures, financings, spin-offs, public offerings, SPACs)

Christen’s expertise covers:

  • Code Section 409A deferred compensation rules
  • Tax rules governing equity compensation
  • Golden parachute rules under Code Section 280G
  • ERISA
  • COBRA
  • PPACA
  • GINA
  • HIPAA
Contact:Read more about Christen SewellEmail

Taxpayers may treat the $6,900 original annual contribution limit for family coverage to health savings accounts (“HSAs”) as the limit for 2018, according to IRS guidance released on April 26, 2018 (press release; IRS Rev. Proc. 2018-27).  Employers that took steps to comply with the reduced limit may need to take action.

As discussed in our earlier blog post, the contribution limit for family coverage to HSAs for 2018 was reduced by $50 from $6,900 to $6,850.  Bowing to pressure from stakeholders who explained to the Treasury Department and IRS that implementing the reduction would impose administrative and financial burdens, the IRS announced that for 2018, taxpayers with family coverage under a high deductible health plan may treat $6,900 as the maximum deductible HSA contribution.

This is welcome relief for employers that had not yet taken steps to comply with the reduced limit.  However, for employers that already informed participants of the change and took steps to modify salary reduction elections or return contributions in excess of the lower limit, this guidance likely triggers additional action.…

Continue Reading Original HSA Family Contribution Limit to Remain in Place for 2018

Changes to cost of living adjustments for health savings accounts (“HSAs”) by the Tax Cuts & Jobs Act of 2017 (the “Act”) caused a $50 decrease in the contribution limit for family coverage to HSAs for 2018.  The limit was reduced from $6,900 to $6,850 (original limit here; revised limit here).

This affects only 2018 contributions for employees with family coverage who have exceeded or made elections that will exceed the original HSA contribution limit for 2018.…

Continue Reading HSA Family Contribution Limit Reduced for 2018

The IRS has provided interim guidance in Notice 2015-43 on the application of certain provisions of the Affordable Care Act to expatriate health insurance issuers, expatriate health plans, and employers in their capacity as sponsors of expatriate health plans.  The interim guidance is effective for policies that are issued or renewed on or after July 1, 2015, and for plan years that start on or after July 1, 2015.  We discussed ACA issues for U.S. expatriates and expatriate health plans in an earlier post.

Background

As background, the regulatory agencies issued temporary relief in FAQs XIII and FAQs XVIII  that exempted certain expatriate health plans from some of ACA’s market reforms if they complied with a number of pre-ACA mandates.  The FAQs applied only to insured plans with enrollment limited to primary insureds who live outside their home country or outside the U.S. for at least 6 months during a 12-month period and their dependents.  The FAQs provided no relief for self-insured plans.
Continue Reading Interim Guidance for Expatriate Health Plans

The Obama administration recently issued final regulations implementing the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addition Equity Act of 2008 (the “MHPAEA”).  The regulations implement the MHPAEA’s prohibition against imposing limits on mental health and substance use disorder benefits that are more restrictive than the limits on medical and surgical benefits.  The final regulations largely preserve interim final regulations that have been in effect since July 1, 2010, with some clarifications that were announced previously in less formal guidance.

The final regulations, not surprisingly, require parity between medical/surgical benefits, on the one hand, and mental health/substance use disorder benefits, on the other, when both are provided under an employer’s major medical plan.  However, in determining whether the parity is achieved, employers will need to consider separate arrangements, such as employee assistance plans and wellness programs.  The failure to consider plans other than the major medical plan could result in noncompliance with the mental health parity rules. 

The penalty for failing to comply with the new requirements is an excise tax of $100 per day per affected participant.  In frequently asked questions that were issued with the final regulations, the Departments indicated that ensuring compliance through audits and other mechanisms is a high priority.
Continue Reading Could Smoking Cessation Programs Violate Mental Health Parity Rules? Traps for the Unwary in Recent Regulations

Corporate lawyers negotiating asset purchase agreements believe strongly in the concept of freedom of contract.  Asset purchase agreements invariably have carefully crafted provisions dictating which assets and liabilities transfer to the buyer and which assets and liabilities remain with the seller.

Unfortunately, when it comes to employee and employee benefit liabilities, courts don’t always respect these carefully written contracts.  Courts are loathe to rule against employees or retirees who have lost certain rights or benefits as a result of a transaction, and an unsuspecting buyer can easily find itself responsible for employee-related liabilities that the buyer thought it had avoided.

In a recent example of this “buyer beware” phenomenon, the 7th Circuit held in Teed v. Thomas & Betts Power Solutions that an asset buyer was on the hook for a $500,000 settlement award for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), even though the buyer expressly disclaimed the liability in the asset purchase agreement. …
Continue Reading Buyer Beware: Asset Purchaser Liable for Predecessor’s FLSA Liability