Photo of Neal Schelberg

Neal Schelberg

Subscribe to Neal Schelberg's Posts

Neal serves as legal counsel to numerous pension and welfare benefit plans subject to ERISA. His clients span a wide variety of industries, including professional sports, teamsters, building and construction, health care, industrial, wholesale and retail food and newspaper publishing. He has particular experience representing insolvent and financially distressed multiemployer pension plans.

He practices the full spectrum of employee benefits law. From advising on compliance issues, to negotiating benefit provisions in mergers and other business reorganizations and advising benefit plan clients and sponsors on investment transactions in traditional and alternative asset classes, Neal deftly hones in on the critical issues in order to protect the plan fiduciaries and meet their business needs.

Neal has been widely recognized as a leading employee benefits practitioner in Proskauer’s Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Group which is rated “Tier 1” by The Legal 500 United States, a leading legal directory which rates firms and lawyers based on client feedback. Clients cite Neal as ‘one of a kind’ – he is the only practitioner in the field I would select to brief a CEO or corporate board.”

He is a former Chair of the ERISA Advisory Council, having been appointed to this position by the U.S. Secretary of Labor in 2014

Neal is a frequent lecturer and prolific author for many organizations such as the International Foundation of Employee Benefit Plans, the Law Education Institute and the Practising Law Institute. He has also been quoted in numerous journals and periodicals.

He serves as a board member for the National Association of Drug Abuse Programs and the D.C. 9 Scholarship Fund.

Contact:Read more about Neal Schelberg

proskauer benefits brief podcast

In this episode of the Proskauer Benefits Brief, partner Neal Schelberg and associate Miriam Dubin discuss cybersecurity issues impacting employee benefit plans. Data breaches are occurring with increased frequency in today’s digital environment. Benefit plans in particular are uniquely susceptible to cyber-risks because they store large amounts of sensitive employee information and share it with multiple third parties. In this episode, we discuss the developing legal framework in the area of cybersecurity and outline practical tips that plan sponsors and record-keepers may use to secure plan data. So be sure to tune in for this very important issue impacting employee benefit plans.


 Listen to the podcast

While the term “co-pay” might suggest a sharing of costs between patients and their health plans, a recent study by the University of Southern California Schaeffer Center found that almost a quarter of patients are paying more than the full price for their prescription drugs under their insurance plans due to “clawbacks.”  A prescription drug…

Recently, the Sixth Circuit ruled in Hitchcock v. Cumberland University 403(b) Plan that pension plan participants are not required to exhaust their plan’s administrative remedies before pursuing claims alleging statutory violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (“ERISA”).[i] In so deciding, the Sixth Circuit joined the majority of circuit courts in holding that claims alleging statutory violations of ERISA do not impose the same administrative exhaustion requirements that are applicable to claims seeking to enforce contractual rights under the terms of a plan. By deepening the current split on this issue among the circuit courts, the ruling could have a significant impact on future ERISA litigations.

The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (“ERISA”), requires trustees of multiemployer pension and benefit funds to collect contributions required to be made by contributing employers under their collective bargaining agreements (“CBAs”) with the labor union sponsoring the plans. This is not always an easy task—often, an employer is an incorporated entity with limited assets or financial resources to satisfy its contractual obligations. In some instances, an employer will resort to filing for bankruptcy to obtain a discharge of its debts to the pension or benefit funds.

In a distinct trend, federal courts have found that, depending on the text of the underlying plan documents, unpaid employer contributions due under a CBA may be viewed as plan assets, such that the representatives of an employer who exercise fiduciary control over those plan assets can be held individually liable for the unpaid amounts (together with interest and penalties) under ERISA. These cases will no doubt help plan trustees and administrators collect monies owed to the plan. They also should serve as cautionary warnings to contributing employers to ensure that they fully understand the obligations that they are undertaking when they agree to contribute to ERISA funds pursuant to CBAs.