The grab bag of retirement provisions in the SECURE 2.0 legislation that was enacted at the end of 2022 included an expansion of the ability for a section 401(k) or 403(b) plan, or a governmental section 457(b) plan, to provide matching contributions on participants’ student loan payments. Effective for plan years starting after December 31,
SECURE 2.0 Brings Significant Changes for 403(b) Plans
As part of our continuing series on SECURE 2.0, signed into law December 29, 2022, this post focuses on significant changes for section 403(b) tax-sheltered annuity plans (“403(b) plans”). 403(b) plans are similar to 401(a) tax-qualified defined contribution plans but sponsored by public schools or non-profit entities and subject to unique requirements under the
SECURE 2.0 Act of 2022 Arrives: (Another) Landmark Retirement Package
The wait is over for SECURE 2.0, a long-awaited (and debated) package of retirement plan reforms. Today, Congress passed the “SECURE 2.0 Act of 2022” as part of the 2023 Consolidated Appropriations Act; President Biden is expected to sign the bill into law soon. The bill text may be viewed here, and the Senate
IRS Opens Determination Letter Program to Individually Designed 403(b) Plans
On October 21st, the IRS announced changes to its qualified plan determination letter program. Most notably, the program has been expanded to include section 403(b) tax-sheltered annuity plans (“403(b) plans”). Although 403(b) plans are similar to tax-qualified defined contribution plans (“401(a) plans”), they are subject to unique rules, and, until now, the IRS
A Conjunction is Worth Thousands of Dollars: Recent Case Highlights Significance of “And” vs. “Or”
You do not need a Lexis or Westlaw subscription to know that major cases and significant judgments have sometimes hinged on the meaning of a single word, or the placement of a single Oxford comma. We have a recent case to add to the list: Weinberg v. Waystar, Inc., et al., which was an
Sixth Circuit Rejects Arbitration for Proposed Fiduciary Breach Class Action
The Sixth Circuit, in a matter of first impression for that Circuit, held an arbitration clause contained in an individual employment agreement did not apply to ERISA fiduciary breach claims brought on behalf of a defined contribution plan. The case is Hawkins et al. v. Cintas Corp., No. 21-2156, __ F.4th __, 2022 WL
Ninth Circuit Revives Second Excessive Fee 401(k) Plan Litigation
On Friday, for the second week in a row, the Ninth Circuit reversed dismissal of a 401(k) plan excessive fee litigation challenging the offering of retail share classes of mutual funds instead of cheaper institutional share classes. As with its decision reviving the other 401(k) plan litigation (discussed in detail here), the Ninth Circuit
Ninth Circuit Revives Fee Challenge to Salesforce.com 401(k) Plan
On Friday, the Ninth Circuit became the first circuit court to rule in a 401(k) plan fee and investment litigation following the Supreme Court’s January 2022 decision in Hughes v. Northwestern University, 142 S. Ct. 737 (2022). In Davis v. Salesforce.com, Inc., No. 21-15867 (9th Cir. Apr. 8, 2022), the Ninth Circuit, without
[Podcast]: Key ERISA Fee and Investment Litigation Developments and the Impact of Hughes v. Northwestern University
In this episode of The Proskauer Benefits Brief, Myron D. Rumeld, partner and co-chair of Proskauer’s ERISA Litigation group and senior associate Tulio D. Chirinos, review the current state of affairs with respect to the litigation challenging the fees charged and investments offered in defined contribution plans; and The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Hughes v. Northwestern University where the court reversed and remanded the Seventh Circuit’s decision affirming dismissal of a 403(b) plan excessive fee litigation.
District Court Enforces 403(b) Plan Arbitration Clause With Class Action Waiver But Allows For Plan-Wide Non-Monetary Relief
A federal district court in Florida sent a proposed ERISA breach of fiduciary duty class action to individual arbitration on the basis of a plan arbitration clause that allowed for individual relief and plan-wide injunctive relief. The case is Holmes v. Baptist Health South Florida, Inc., No. 21-cv-22986, 2022 WL 180638 (S.D. Fla. Jan.