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

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,