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

The United States Supreme Court recently held in M&K Employee Solutions, LLC et al. v. Trustees of the IAM National Pension Fund that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) does not require that the actuarial assumptions used to calculate withdrawal liability be selected on or before the statutory measurement date. In doing so, the Court resolved a split between the Second and D.C. Circuits on when those assumptions may be selected. What is withdrawal liability? Withdrawal liability is the proportionate share of a multiemployer pension plan’s unfunded vested benefits owed by a contributing employer that partially or completely withdraws from the plan. A multiemployer pension plan is a plan to which more than one employer contributes and that is maintained pursuant to one or more collective bargaining agreements. ERISA requires employers that withdraw from an underfunded multiemployer pension plan to pay their share of the plan’s unfunded vested benefits

Trump Accounts, a new tax-advantaged individual retirement account (IRA) intended for the benefit of minor children, were established under Internal Revenue Code (Code) Section 530A as part of the One Big Beautiful Bill (OB3) Act of 2025. These new accounts may be established for the benefit of children under age 18 with a valid social security number, and contributions can begin as early as July 4, 2026. Accounts can be opened by an authorized individual (generally a parent or legal guardian) by filing IRS Form 4547. Electronic completion of the Form 4547 will also be available through a new “trumpaccounts.gov” portal. The intent behind Trump accounts is to provide an early-start long-term savings vehicle for children, and to provide parents, guardians and employers a tax-advantaged vehicle for investment in the child’s future. Trump Accounts are intended to supplement existing savings vehicles such as Section 529 accounts. As part of a