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
Retirement
Changing Last Year’s Assumptions This Year: Gotcha or Copacetic?
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?So, How Can Participants Invest Their Retirement Money?
Seyfarth Synopsis: Under the current administration, the Department of Labor has once again changed course on its view of permissible investing strategies for retirement plans, warming to crypto and private equity, and confirming their distrust of ESG.
Over the last decade, there has been quite a bit of back and forth surrounding permissible investments…
Missing Participants – What to do With Abandoned Accounts
Seyfarth Synopsis: Over the years, plan sponsors and administrators have wrestled with the question of what to do with the accounts of participants who left employment years earlier and cannot now be located. Notwithstanding their best efforts, plans continue to maintain accounts of participants who are either missing or unresponsive to plan correspondence (“missing participants”). On January 14, 2025, the DOL issued Field Assistance Bulletin (FAB) 2025-01 that allows sponsors and administrators of ongoing defined contribution (DC) plans to transfer unclaimed small accounts to a state unclaimed property fund of the participant’s last known address provided the fund satisfies certain requirements.
The issue of what to do with the accounts of missing participants is an age-old question. In 2014 the DOL issued FAB 2014-01, stating that an IRA was the preferred destination for unclaimed defined contribution (DC) plan accounts. That same FAB also acknowledged that IRAs may not be available for terminating DC plans, and suggested that in certain circumstances, a state unclaimed property fund or an interest-bearing FDIC-insured bank account might also be appropriate. More recently, the DOL became concerned that IRAs may not be the sole (or even most) appropriate destination for unclaimed plan accounts, as IRAs charge fees that often exceed the investment returns of small accounts, resulting in the account being eaten away by fees. In fact, when plan sponsors started looking to IRAs as the destination of its unclaimed account balances, the sponsors found it challenging to find an IRA provider who would accept all accounts, particularly small accounts, and that the limited choices resulted in front end, back end, and/or annual fees that would quickly exhaust the account balance. From the fiduciary perspective, many plan fiduciaries were reluctant to make such transfers. As time passed, however, more IRA providers became available and fees dropped. But not necessarily to zero.
Continue Reading Missing Participants – What to do With Abandoned AccountsCatching-Up on Catch-Up Contribution Changes
Federal District Court Dismisses Another 401(k) Forfeitures Suit

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…
Major SECURE 2.0 Guidance Issued: Extra Credit for Repaying Qualified Student Loans
Seyfarth Synopsis: On August 19, 2024, the IRS issued Notice 2024-63 (the “Notice”) providing guidance for plan sponsors that wish to provide matching contributions based on eligible student loan repayments made by participants, rather than based only on elective deferrals, pursuant to the SECURE 2.0 Act of 2022. This post summarizes guidance under the Notice.
Section 110 of the SECURE 2.0 Act of 2022 codified rules that permitted plan sponsors to make a matching contribution to a 401(k), 403(b), SIMPLE or governmental 457(b) plan based on a participant’s “qualified student loan payment,” in addition to matching contributions on a participant’s elective deferral contribution to the plan. These rules already took effect this year, and the IRS has now issued welcome guidance on how this provision should be implemented.
Continue Reading Major SECURE 2.0 Guidance Issued: Extra Credit for Repaying Qualified Student LoansCoffee Talk With Benefits Episode 19: 401(k) Forfeitures Under Fire: Unpacking Recent Legal Battles
In this episode, Richard and Sarah are joined by Ian Morrison, a Partner in Seyfarth’s ERISA Litigation group to delve into a new line of cases alleging that forfeitures are plan assets, and must be used to benefit plan participants. The plaintiffs in these cases are claiming that using forfeitures to offset employer contributions…
Third Time’s a Charm or Three Strikes You’re Out? The Department of Labor Finalizes its Third Revised Investment Advice Fiduciary Rule
On April 23, 2024, the DOL finalized its 2023 proposed package of amendments to the regulations defining who is a fiduciary under ERISA by virtue of providing investment advice for a fee, and amendments to seven existing prohibited transaction exemptions. This latest iteration of the fiduciary rule, the DOL’s third attempt at revising this rule…
Washington Saves; Washington State’s New State-Mandated Retirement Program
Seyfarth Synopsis: On March 28, 2024, Washington State’s Governor, Jay Inslee, signed into law a bill that creates a new state-run retirement program called “Washington Saves.” Under the program, “covered employers” must give “covered employees” the opportunity to contribute a portion of their pay to an individual retirement account (“IRA”) on a pre-tax basis in order to save for retirement.
Which Employers Must Comply With Washington Saves?
Only “covered employers” must comply with Washington Saves. A “covered employer” is an employer that:
- has been in business in Washington State for at least two (2) years;
- has a physical presence in the State as of the immediately preceding calendar year;
- does not offer a qualified retirement plan, such as a 401(a), 401(k), 403(b) plan, to their “covered employees” (employees who are at least age 18) who have been continuously employed for at least one year; and
- employs, and at any point during the immediately preceding calendar year employed, employees working a combined minimum of 10,400 hours (which translates to approximately 5 full-time or full-time equivalent employees.)
