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
On September 6, 2024, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) issued Compliance Assistance Release No. 2024-01, titled “Cybersecurity Guidance Update.” The updated guidance clarifies that the DOL cybersecurity guidance applies to all ERISA-covered plans, and not just retirement plans, but also health and welfare plans. Also, as a direct response to service providers’
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
In 2024, we commemorate a significant milestone in the landscape of employee benefits law: the 50th Anniversary of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Enacted on Labor Day in 1974 by President Gerald Ford, ERISA has since served as a cornerstone in safeguarding the retirement and welfare benefits of American workers.
Here at Seyfarth
This article was originally posted to Seyfarth’s Global Privacy Watch blog.
Employers looking to enhance their suite of employee benefit programs, and focused on lessons learned during the pandemic on wellbeing, are interested in providing greater access to wellness tools. And, the vendors who support those tools are more than happy to provide them.
On October 31, 2023, the Department of Labor (“DOL”) issued its latest attempt at revising the rules regarding when investment professionals who provide “investment advice” to employee benefit plans or plan participants are a fiduciary under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”). This proposed rule represents the most recent bid by the
By: Amanda Genovese and Ryan Tikker
The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently took a clarifying pencil to certain standards applicable to benefits disputes under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et. seq. (ERISA). In Carlson, et al. v. Northrop Grumman Severance Plan, et
The 50th anniversary of the enactment of ERISA is next year, so we thought what better way to look back on those 50 years than with Seyfarth Partner, Howard Pianko, who was one of the original ERISA practitioners back in 1974. Listen in as Howard recollects his journey with ERISA these past almost 50
Seyfarth Synopsis: A recent decision from the Eastern District of Michigan serves as a reminder that—while courts are often quick to certify classes in ERISA cases—plaintiffs must satisfy the requirements of Rule 23 and that courts can (and do) refuse class certification where those requirements are not met.
In Davis v. Magna International of America
By: Ronald Kramer and Seong Kim
Seyfarth Synopsis: Another court has found that actuaries who set discount rates for withdrawal liability purposes that are not based upon their “best estimate of anticipated experience” for investments under the plan—in this case, basing the rate assumption only on estimated returns for 40% of the Plan’s assets in