On June 30, 2025, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in M&K Employee Solutions, LLC et al. v. Trustees of the IAM Nat’l Pension Fund to address whether the requirement under ERISA section 4211 that multiemployer pension plans compute withdrawal liability based on the plan’s unfunded vested benefits “as of the end” of the plan year
The California wildfires were officially declared a federal disaster by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) on January 7, 2025. Plan sponsors and participants continue to navigate the financial and administrative impacts of these events. During this unpredictable time, plan sponsors may be able to provide various forms of relief to impacted participants. Plan sponsors
On March 28, 2025, two neighboring district courts issued sharply contrasting decisions on constitutional standing in lawsuits challenging pension risk transfers under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”). The United States District Court for the District of Columbia, in Camire et al. v. Alcoa USA Corp. (“Alcoa Decision”)
In Hansen v. Laboratory Corporation of America, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 193350 (E.D. Wis. 2024), the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin rejected a challenge to the authority of the Department of Labor (DOL) to promulgate a “payroll practice” exemption to the definition of plans covered by the Employee Retirement Income Security
On January 17, 2025, the ERISA Industry Committee (“ERIC”) filed a lawsuit, The ERISA Industry Committee v. United States Department of Health and Human Services et al. challenging the final Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (“MHPAEA”) rule published by the Departments of Labor, Treasury, and Health and Human Services (the “Departments”) in
In a closely watched ERISA case, the United States District Court for the District of Colorado has issued an order affirming the Magistrate Judge’s ruling in Harrison v. Envision Management Holding, Inc. Board of Directors et al (Case No. 21-cv-00304), concerning the discoverability of Department of Labor (“DOL”) interview reports plaintiffs had obtained under a