On April 1, 2026, the Department of Labor (DOL) issued Technical Release 2026-01 (the “Technical Release”), providing guidance regarding the application of ERISA’s fiduciary requirements to proxy advisory firms. The Technical Release addresses the fiduciary responsibilities of plan fiduciaries that use proxy advisers, the circumstances under which proxy advisory firms may be treated as ERISA fiduciaries, and the extent to which ERISA preempts state laws regulating proxy advisory services. The Technical Release follows President Trump’s December 2025 Executive Order directing the DOL to reconsider its guidance regarding the fiduciary status of individuals who manage or advise on proxy voting. As discussed in our prior article, Proxy Voting Back in the Spotlight – Practical Steps for Now, the Executive Order specifically directed the DOL to consider whether proxy advisers that provide advice for a fee regarding shareholder rights attributable to shares held by ERISA plans should be treated as investment advice fiduciaries.

Plan sponsors and fiduciaries regularly review investment performance, fees, participation and contribution levels, withdrawals, distributions, and other plan metrics. Those reports are an important oversight tool, but they may not by themselves provide the information needed for a complete plan assessment. A retirement plan may be well administered and have strong aggregate participation, and still not be working at an optimum level for all parts of the workforce. A useful question, then, is what do the plan’s data and experience reveal about how employees are actually using the plan benefits? That question has become more relevant as employers manage workforces that differ widely in compensation, tenure, location, job type, and financial circumstances. Some employees are building retirement savings while also paying student loans. Others are supporting children and aging parents at the same time. Still others may be living close enough to the margin that an unexpected expense leads them

Since the beginning of 2025, over two dozen putative class action lawsuits have been filed against retirement plan sponsors and their fiduciaries challenging the stable value funds offered in their plans. The complaints follow a common template. A participant alleges that the plan’s stable value fund credited a lower rate of return than other products the fiduciaries could have selected, and asks the court to infer from that comparison that the fiduciary process in selecting and monitoring the fund was flawed. In this article, we begin with an overview of stable value funds. We then assess the claims in the current wave of litigation, the arguments defendants have made in seeking dismissal, and the division among the circuit courts over the pleading standard applicable to these claims. We conclude with action items that plan fiduciaries should consider in order to mitigate the risk of being sued. Background A stable value

On April 14, 2026, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) issued Field Assistance Bulletin No. 2026-01 (“FAB 2026-01” or the “FAB”), setting forth guidance concerning the Employee Benefits Security Administration’s (EBSA’s) approach to the investigation and enforcement of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). Although the FAB is directed principally to EBSA investigators and constitutes internal agency guidance, rather than a regulation or other source of law, it provides critical insight into EBSA’s enforcement priorities and investigative practices. In particular, the FAB offers an important heads-up in terms of how the DOL intends to shape ERISA enforcement and the manner in which EBSA may exercise its investigative and enforcement authority in the coming years. A Different Enforcement Philosophy FAB 2026-01 articulates a distinct shift in the DOL’s enforcement philosophy. The FAB identifies four priorities and guiding principles intended to guide EBSA’s exercise of its investigative and enforcement

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently declined to rehear its decision vacating certification of a mandatory class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1) in Trauernicht v. Genworth Financial Inc. The Court held that fiduciary-breach claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) involving a defined contribution plan sought individualized monetary relief and did not satisfy Rule 23’s commonality requirement. In doing so, the Court narrowed the availability of mandatory class certification in ERISA fiduciary breach litigation involving defined contribution plans and may significantly affect class-certification strategy in future ERISA cases. If the Fourth Circuit’s reasoning is adopted in other circuits, it would have a major impact on ERISA cases involving the manner in which plan assets are invested. Class Certification under Rule 23 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 governs the process of class certification and involves a two-step analysis. First, the party seeking