Seyfarth Synopsis: Two unpublished decisions involving the same change in control severance plan went in opposite directions on the standard of review.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
If you are tired of keeping track of which retirement plan investments are deemed “good” and which are suddenly “bad”, we have encouraging news. The Department of Labor’s (“DOL’s”) latest proposed rule goes back to the fundamentals and our favorite mantra—it’s not what you pick, it’s how you pick it.
The DOL’s proposed
Benefits and Beyond: What Happens to PTO, Health Insurance, Retirement Plans, and other Benefits?
When an employee passes away, their benefits don’t just vanish into the HR ether. There’s a surprising amount of paperwork, plan rules, and tax codes that come into play—and yes, you’ll probably need to call your benefits administrator (and maybe your
Let’s face it—no one wants to think about what happens when an employee dies. It’s a deeply human moment, and yet, somewhere between the condolences and the memorial service, someone in Human Resources is quietly asking: “So… what do we do about their final pay?”
It’s not cold-hearted—it’s compliance. When an employee passes away, employers
In this episode, Richard is joined by Alan Wilmit, serving as co-host, as they welcome Ada Dolph, a Partner in Seyfarth’s ERISA Litigation group, to unpack the complexities of pension risk transfers (PRTs). Ada explains what PRTs are, how they’re used to manage pension liabilities, and why they’re drawing increased scrutiny. The conversation covers
Seyfarth Synopsis: Just before its summer recess, the Supreme Court agreed to review whether multiemployer pension funds can impose withdrawal liability based on actuarial assumptions adopted after the relevant plan year. The expected decision may have significant implications for employers’ ability to assess the impact of a contemplated withdrawal.
At the end of June, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in M & K Employee Solutions, LLC v. Trustees of the IAM National Pension Fund, No. 23-1209 (U.S. June 30, 2025 amended July 3, 2025) to consider an important question in calculating how much employers withdrawing from multiemployer pension funds are legally obligated to pay.
Withdrawing employers have to pay a portion of the fund’s unfunded vested benefits (i.e. the amount of vested benefits that a fund is legally obligated to pay but for which the fund does not have sufficient assets to meet). The withdrawal liability calculation is to be determined based on the fund’s financials as of the end of the plan year before the withdrawal. It can take many funds six months if not more after the end of a plan year to finalize their year-end financials and thus be able to issue a withdrawal liability assessment in the following plan year. In that interim, as the financials are being finalized, fund actuaries have on occasion changed actuarial assumptions, such as interest rates or mortality tables, retroactive to the prior plan year.
Continue Reading Changing Last Year’s Assumptions This Year: Gotcha or Copacetic?
We’re proud to share that Seyfarth’s Beneficially Yours blog has been ranked #1 on FeedSpot’s list of the Top 35 ERISA blogs.
Compiled from thousands of blogs, FeedSpot’s list highlights leading sources based on web traffic, social media engagement, domain authority, and content freshness.
Edited by Diane Dygert and Richard Schwartz, Beneficially Yours
Two courts. Two opposite rulings. One critical question: Do plaintiffs have standing to challenge pension risk transfers under ERISA?
In the first two decisions to address Article III standing in this rising wave of class actions, federal courts in Maryland and D.C. have landed on opposing sides. One case will head to discovery; the other
Seyfarth Synopsis: Since September 2023, there have been at least 25 lawsuits filed claiming the ability to choose between using 401(k) forfeitures to reduce plan expenses or the plan sponsor’s contributions is a fiduciary choice, and that choosing to reduce the plan sponsor’s contributions constitutes a violation of ERISA’s fiduciary duties. In the latest decision
Seyfarth Synopsis: Orders issued by the Eastern District of Texas on Thursday July 25 and the Northern District of Texas on Friday July 26 indefinitely delayed the September 23, 2024 effective date of the Department of Labor’s revised regulation defining when a party becomes an “investment advice” fiduciary (the “New Fiduciary Rule”) and amendments to seven related prohibited transaction exemptions (“PTEs”).
In Federation of Americans for Consumer Choice v. Department of Labor (the “FACC Case”), the plaintiffs, a trade group representing the insurance industry, whose mission is “to promote a level playing field for independent insurance professionals by advocating and influencing practices, regulations, and legislation that foster consumer choice” and certain insurance professionals who are members of FACC, challenged the New Fiduciary Rule and amendments to PTE 84-24 (“PTE 84-14 Amendments”) under the Administrative Procedures Act (the “APA”). The plaintiffs moved for a stay of the effective date of New Fiduciary Rule and the PTE 84-24 Amendments, or a preliminary injunction prohibiting enforcement of the New Fiduciary Rule and PTE 84-24 Amendments, while the FACC Case is pending.
Continue Reading Two Texas District Courts Issue Orders Delaying the Effective Date of DOL Fiduciary Rule and Related Amendments to Seven Prohibited Transaction Exemptions