The recent Department of Labor (“DOL”) guidance on the SECURE 2.0 Act of 2022 (“SECURE 2.0”) paper statement requirement provides welcome short-term relief for retirement plan administrators. At the same time, it underscores that plan sponsors should begin evaluating their electronic disclosure practices now. On May 12, 2026, the DOL issued Field Assistance Bulletin 2026-02 (“FAB 2026-02”), announcing a temporary nonenforcement policy for plans that comply in good faith with a reasonable interpretation of the DOL’s February 2026 proposed regulations titled Requirement to Provide Paper Statements in Certain Cases-Amendments to Electronic Disclosure Safe Harbors (the “Proposed Rule”). The FAB follows the DOL’s proposed amendments to its 2002 and 2020 electronic disclosure safe harbors, which were issued earlier this year to implement Section 338 of SECURE 2.0. Background ERISA Required Disclosures.  Title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) requires plan administrators to furnish numerous disclosures to participants and

On May 13, 2026, the Internal Revenue Service, Department of Labor, and Department of Health and Human Services (collectively, the “Departments”) published a Proposed Rule (the “Proposed Rule”) that will, if adopted, allow employers to offer fertility coverage as a “limited excepted benefit.” An employer would be allowed to offer fertility coverage on a standalone basis, exempt from certain compliance requirements under such federal laws as the Portability rules under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”), the Affordable Care Act (“ACA”), and the No Surprises Act. Expanding Fertility Benefits Part of President’s Agenda The Department of Labor (“DOL”) news release accompanying the Proposed Rule called it “a central component” of the Trump Administration’s policy to expand access to fertility benefits by ensuring reliable and affordable access to in vitro fertilization (“IVF”). Over the past year, the Trump Administration has taken several actions to push its fertility benefits agenda. On February

The Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) recently issued a series of Frequently Asked Questions (IRS “FAQs”) addressing Educational Assistance Programs under Section 127 of the Internal Revenue Code (the “Code”). The first set of IRS FAQs was issued in June of 2024, and the second set was recently published on April 20, 2026. These IRS FAQs help provide general information regarding educational assistance programs, contain certain clarifying information, and provide updates based on recent law (such as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act). What is an educational assistance program? An employer may sponsor an educational assistance program for its employees. If the program complies with the requirements of Code Section 127, an employee may receive tax advantaged reimbursement for their eligible educational assistance expenses through the program. A written plan document is required. To comply with the requirements of Code section 127, the employer must maintain a written plan document for its educational

It has been nearly seven years since we last wrote about “actuarial equivalence” litigation—a new flavor of ERISA class action lawsuits that emerged in 2018. (See Defined Benefit Plan Actuarial Equivalence Litigation – A Formidable Threat or An Unfounded Theory?) More than three dozen such lawsuits have been filed to date, but we still do not have definitive answers to the fundamental questions at the heart of this litigation: what does ERISA §205(d)(2)(A), which requires “actuarial equivalence” between single-life and joint and survivor annuity options,[1] actually mean—and what must plan sponsors do to comply? A spate of recent court decisions—mostly favorable to defendants—shows that the federal courts are still struggling with these questions, and ultimately they will likely need to be decided by the Supreme Court. Most of the actuarial equivalence cases have been brought against defined benefit pension plans sponsored by large corporations and their fiduciaries: American Airlines, PepsiCo, Kellogg Company, Intel,

Many employers say they do not want their severance arrangement or policy (hereinafter, a “severance plan”) to be subject to ERISA, due to its burdensome requirements of having to draft and maintain a plan document and a summary plan description (SPD), preparing and filing Forms 5500 annual reports, and subjecting the severance plan to compliance with fiduciary standards. However, many change their minds after understanding that ERISA coverage provides for many advantages, and the related compliance requirements are not particularly onerous. This article discusses what causes a severance plan to be subject to ERISA, the consequences that result, and the advantages of ERISA coverage. It Is Likely Your Severance Plan Is Already Subject to ERISA. Many employers believe that if their severance plan is maintained only pursuant to a policy and not a written “plan,” it should not be subject to ERISA. It should be understood that it does not

Last year, in Cunningham v. Cornell University, 604 U.S. 693 (2025), the Supreme Court resolved a circuit split on pleading standards for prohibited transaction (PT) claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”). This article provides an overview of how that decision has affected motions to dismiss those claims. Transactions described by the PT statute, ERISA §406(a), 29 U.S.C. § 1106(a), occur frequently in the ordinary course of administering ERISA-governed plans, but prudent fiduciaries endeavor to have such transactions fall under one of the statutory exemptions under ERISA §408(b), 29 U.S.C. §1108(b). Before Cunningham, the Second, Third, Seventh, and Tenth Circuit U.S. Courts of Appeal required plaintiffs alleging a PT claim under ERISA §406(a) to plead that an exemption under ERISA §408(b) does not apply. The Eighth and Ninth Circuits held that it was sufficient to allege that a plan fiduciary caused the plan to enter into a transaction