Seyfarth Synopsis: A deceptively simple question—How can an ESOP fiduciary determine that the price paid for closely-held stock constitutes “adequate consideration” under ERISA?—has created uncertainty in the employee stock ownership plan (“ESOP”) world for years. Relief is finally here in the form of the Retire Through Ownership Act (the “Act”), which was passed
There is no cost to attend, however, registration is required.
Thursday, October 15, 2026
3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern
2:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. Central
1:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. Mountain
12:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m. Pacific
The ERISA litigation landscape continues to evolve as courts, regulators, and
Seyfarth Synopsis: The DOL’s latest MHPAEA guidance gives plan sponsors a practical roadmap for where parity compliance reviews should focus next. Although the DOL has announced limited nonenforcement relief for certain portions of the 2024 Final Rule, the agency made clear that it continues to enforce MHPAEA’s core statutory requirements, including the obligation to prepare and maintain written NQTL comparative analyses. The key takeaway is to review written plan terms and operational practices for warning signs involving treatment exclusions, medical necessity, utilization management, and network adequacy, and to make sure service providers will provide support.
Consistent with the DOL’s enforcement priorities for 2026, earlier this week the Department of Labor (“DOL”) released Field Assistance Bulletin No. 2026-03 and an accompanying web page (“Identifying Potential Problems: If You See the Following in Written Plan Provisions or Plan Operations, Think Twice about Possible MHPAEA Compliance Problems”), which spotlight three key focus areas for enforcement and provide a checklist for identifying warning signs that might indicate potential compliance problems under the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA).
The Field Assistance Bulletin explains that the DOL intends to focus its MHPAEA NQTL enforcement on three areas where it sees significant risk of participant harm:
Employer Takeaway: According to the guidance, these are the places the DOL is most likely to look first. Treat the DOL’s three focus areas as the starting point for your next MHPAEA review.
Continue Reading DOL Hands Employers a Mental Health Parity Roadmap
Seyfarth Synopsis: On August 11, 2026, the Internal Revenue Service issued proposed regulations addressing nondiscrimination rules for dependent care assistance programs (“DCAPs”) under Section 129 of the Internal Revenue Code (the “IRC”). More than 45 years after DCAPs were enacted under IRC § 129, these proposed regulations provide long-awaited guidance on DCAP nondiscrimination testing and also address employer contributions and nondiscrimination rules for Trump Accounts. For additional information on Trump Accounts, see our blogs here and here.
A DCAP allows employees to pay eligible dependent-care expenses with pre-tax dollars. Employers may also contribute to an employee’s DCAP. For 2026, the maximum amount that may be excluded from an employee’s gross income is $7,500, or $3,750 for a married individual filing separately.
Eligible expenses generally include care for:
The proposed regulations confirm and elaborate on the four statutory nondiscrimination tests applicable to DCAPs:
For the first time, each test receives detailed regulatory guidance.
Continue Reading Worth the Wait: After 45 Years, Dependent Care Assistance Programs Finally Get Regulations
Seyfarth Synopsis: In newly issued ACA Implementation FAQs (Part 74), the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Treasury provide welcome guidance for employers sponsoring health-contingent wellness programs. Most notably, the agencies announced temporary enforcement relief regarding the retroactive application of wellness program rewards when a participant satisfies a reasonable alternative
Seyfarth Synopsis: Section 103 of the SECURE Act 2.0 replaces the Saver’s Credit with a new matching contribution from the federal government. Since the enactment of SECURE 2.0, there have been a number of questions about the implementation of this new matching contribution, and how it will operate. In IRS Notice 2026-48 (“Notice”), the Treasury Department and IRS announced that they intend to propose regulations and other guidance regarding the Saver’s Match program. The Notice does not establish proposed or final regulations. Rather, it outlines the government’s current views on how it expects the Saver’s Match program to work and previews issues that Treasury and the IRS anticipate addressing in future guidance.
Beginning in 2027, the Saver’s Match will replace the federal Saver’s Credit. By way of background, the Saver’s Credit is an income tax credit of up to $1,000 ($2,000 if married filing jointly) that reduces a taxpayer’s federal income tax liability.
Instead of providing a tax credit, the Saver’s Match is a contribution to an employer’s qualified retirement plan or an IRA from the federal government of up to 50% of what the taxpayer contributes to the retirement plan or IRA, capped at a match of up to $1,000. The Saver’s Match rate is based on an individual’s tax filing status and modified adjusted gross income. For married individuals filing jointly, the match applies to each spouse. Certain individuals, such as those that are under age 18, are not eligible. After SECURE 2.0 was enacted, a number of open questions arose with respect to the Saver’s Match, primarily administrative questions and concerns. For example:
The Notice directly addresses several of the questions outlined above, while leaving room for additional guidance and regulations.
Continue Reading New Saver’s Match, New Plan Sponsor Decisions
Seyfarth Synopsis: The IRS has issued further guidance on Trump Accounts addressing employer contributions and eligible investments in which Trump Account funds may be invested.
We discuss the new guidance in our Legal Update here. As discussed in our prior blog posts, including “Trump Accounts: The New Kid on the IRA Block” and “No ERISA
Seyfarth Synopsis: The Department of Labor (DOL) recently issued Technical Release 2026-02, which clarifies that neither Trump Accounts nor employer contributions to Trump Accounts are considered “employee pension benefit plans” under Section 3(2) of ERISA. For additional information about Trump Accounts, please see our prior to blog posts here and here.
The One, Big, Beautiful Bill Act and related Treasury guidance previously provided the following parameters for employer and employee contributions to Trump Accounts:
On February 25, 2026, the Department of Labor (DOL) issued proposed regulations implementing Section 338 of SECURE 2.0, which generally requires defined contribution plan administrators to furnish at least one benefit statement on paper every calendar year and defined benefit plan administrators to furnish at least one pension benefit statement on paper every three calendar
Seyfarth Synopsis: Two unpublished decisions involving the same change in control severance plan went in opposite directions on the standard of review. In 2026, the Fifth Circuit applied abuse of discretion based on plan language delegating interpretive authority to the administrator. In 2025, the Tenth Circuit applied de novo review to similar facts involving