One of the more controversial provisions of SECURE 2.0 is the Roth catch-up contribution rule (the “Roth Catch-up Rule”), due to the administrative burdens and complexities it creates for employers and third party administrators. On September 15, 2025, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the Department of the Treasury (the “Treasury”) issued final regulations on the Roth Catch-up Rule, providing needed guidance ahead of the January 1, 2026, implementation date. While the final regulations are generally effective January 1, 2027, the Roth Catch-up Rule must be implemented on January 1, 2026. This article discusses the key provisions of the final regulations and notes any material changes from the proposed regulations.[1]  Background Section 603 of SECURE 2.0 amended Internal Revenue Code (the “Code”) section 414(v) to require certain participants eligible for age-50 catch-up contributions to make their catch-up contributions as designated Roth contributions. The eligible participants subject to this mandate are

With the growing usage of GLP-1 medications in the U.S., plan sponsors have been exploring different methods for covering the highly-demanded medications under their group health plans, while using cost-containment measures to offset the high costs associated with covering GLP-1s. With the ever-expanding list of plan design options for covering GLP-1s, it is important to keep in mind how federal laws may impact plan design and administration of GLP-1 coverage. Background on GLP-1s GLP-1s (shorthand for glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists) are medications that are used to treat type-2 diabetes and obesity and are well known for their effects on weight loss. There are several GLP-1s that are FDA-approved for adults who are overweight or obese, and even a few that are approved for children or teenagers.[1] Although various GLP-1s may be prescribed for other uses, such as to treat sleep apnea or cardiovascular disease, they are commonly used for weight loss

As financial wellness programs and the related cross-selling of products continue to expand in design and popularity, ERISA fiduciary considerations continue to mount. When recordkeepers and other service providers expand their offerings (or partner with an external party to support financial wellness initiatives), they often rely on the rich resource of participant data that they have collected to market their products. The concept is not new—recordkeepers have a long history of using participant data to market additional services and products, often as beneficial tools for participants. With recordkeepers and other non-fiduciary service providers having financial incentives to sell financial wellness products using the data they collect, plan fiduciaries need to pay attention to such sales activity and the participant data being used as part of the marketing process. A lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey is reminding ERISA plan fiduciaries that failing

Scott Galbreath’s article “What is at Top Hat Group Depends on Jurisdiction—Plans Should Use a Forum Selection Clause to Avoid Confusion” was published in the Journal of Deferred Compensation.” The Top Hat plan exception from the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) is probably the most important requirement for nonqualified deferred compensation plans. That said, there is very little statutory or regulatory guidance on what exactly is the top hat group, which leaves it to the courts to set parameters. Read the full article that was published in the Journal of Deferred Compensation, Vol. 30, No. 4, Summer.

In our December 2024 article for the Benefits Report, we discussed the emergence of a wave of fiduciary breach class action litigation against retirement plan fiduciaries alleging misuse of plan forfeitures. These lawsuits (of which there are now over fifty pending nationwide) generally allege that retirement plan fiduciaries breach their fiduciary duties, violate ERISA’s anti-inurement rule, or engage in prohibited transactions when they use plan forfeitures to offset employer matching contribution obligations instead of paying plan administrative costs otherwise payable by plan participants. To recap the basics, forfeitures occur when an employee leaves his or her company before the employer’s matching contribution fully vests. The non-vested balance of the matching contributions in the participant’s account is forfeited and held in a separate plan forfeiture account. As has long been approved by the IRS, forfeitures may (at least as a tax qualification matter) be allocated to one of three uses: (1) offsetting

As the United States federal government undergoes a tangible political shift, a wide net of executive branch policy changes are reinterpreting federal law, not the least of which is fiduciary responsibility under ERISA. A recent example of this is Department of Labor (DOL) Advisory Opinion 2025-01A, which serves as a reminder to plan fiduciaries that they need to remain apprised of the continued and varied impacts of shifting political landscapes on interpretation and enforcement of their responsibilities. Incumbent in ERISA’s fiduciary responsibilities is the exclusive benefit rule, requiring that Plan fiduciaries act solely in the interest of participants and beneficiaries. (ERISA section 404(a)(1)(A).) In line with the exclusive benefit rule, ERISA’s prohibited transaction rules prohibit plan fiduciaries from dealing with the assets of the plan for their own interest or account. (ERISA section 406(b).)  The exclusive benefit rule and related prohibited transaction rules have long been a topic of executive branch interpretation, with