Andrew Oringer | The Wagner Law Group

An ESOP Fable Comes True – New Legislation Streamlines Certain Valuation Issues

2026-10-23T20:43:03Z

By Barry Salkin, Andrew Oringer and Dannae Delano Last week, on October 15, 2026, President Trump signed the Retire Through Ownership Act (the “Act”) which amends the definition of “adequate consideration” in Section 3(18) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”). The definition applies, among other things, to employee stock ownership plans (“ESOPs”). The Act provides a measure of certainty regarding valuation issues that had not previously been available. Background ESOPs have been expressly contemplated by ERISA as both a tax-qualified retirement tool and a tool of corporate finance, ever since ERISA’s enactment. In some ways, ESOPs are unlike other tax-qualified plans because investment of plan assets can be concentrated in a single asset that can be quite speculative, especially where the employer is privately held and its stock is not available on a public exchange. Further, both the risks and the rewards can be heightened in the case of an ESOP depending on whether or not the interests of shareholders and employees align. (While much of the discussion herein could also apply to non-ESOP eligible individual account plans that allow investment in “employer securities,” this discussion is limited to ESOPs.) The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has long been concerned with ESOPs as both a regulatory and an enforcement matter. Until recently, the DOL had since 2005 designated ESOPs as a national enforcement project on its website. Back in 1988, the DOL proposed a regulation under the ERISA rules that govern whether an ESOP pays more than, or receives less than, adequate consideration for employer securities. Courts have relied on the proposed regulation to varying extents and, during the long period during which the proposal has been outstanding, there has been substantial uncertainty in the market about how much or how little the parties should comply with the specifics of the proposed regulation. Some have wondered whether the proposed regulation has relevance to the more recently added definition of “adequate consideration” that applies for purposes of the so-called “service provider” exemption added to ERISA (as Section 408(b)(17)) by Section 611(d)(1) of the Pension Protection Act of 2006. One approach taken by the DOL in past years has been to pursue fiduciary issues, including valuation issues, through litigation and other enforcement efforts, rather than through further regulatory efforts. One notable settlement, involving GreatBanc Trust Company, garnered significant attention in the market and became (sometimes, at the behest of ESOP sponsors) a basis under which various ESOP fiduciaries proceeded when valuing employer securities. In 2022, the DOL was directed by Congress (in Section 346 (c)(4)(B) of the SECURE 2.0 Act) to issue guidance on the standards and procedures that should be followed when establishing good faith market value for employer securities to be acquired by an ESOP. On January 16, 2025, the DOL under the Biden administration proposed a regulation defining "adequate consideration,” together with a proposed safe harbor. That proposal would have established a number of arguably high bars for ESOP-related valuations. Four days later, President Trump took office and issued an Executive Order (Regulatory Freeze Pending Review), which, among other things, froze all rules sent to, but not yet officially published in, the Federal Register, including the Biden administration proposed regulation. As further context leading to the enactment of the Act, the DOL has arguably indicated that its historical hostility towards ESOPs may be waning. In Field Assistance Bulletin 2026-01, the DOL stated: A key principle guiding EBSA enforcement is fairness . . .. Whenever possible and consistent with our mission, EBSA must not regulate through enforcement activities, or use enforcement to drive policy. Instead, we should use notice-and-comment rulemaking and sub-regulatory guidance. Although circumstances may arise requiring EBSA to act to fulfil its mission to protect the security of the employee benefit plan system, novel legal theories or interpretations of ERISA should not be first articulated during enforcement actions. . .. For example, until EBSA complies with the Congressional directive to provide “acceptable standards and procedures to establish good faith fair market value for shares of a business to be acquired by an employee stock ownership plan,” all pending and proposed ESOP valuation investigations must be reviewed against this guiding principle of fairness. The Act Against this backdrop, in a Congress where bipartisan action is not always the norm, the Act was passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. Under the Act, which took effect immediately upon enactment, the relevant plan fiduciary “may make a good faith reliance on a valuation provided by an independent valuation expert or business appraiser that has relied upon the principles and methodologies set forth in Revenue Ruling 59-60 (as amplified and modified by IRS) in determining fair market value.” The Act also provides the DOL with authority to issue regulations interpreting the Act; states that the Act does not expand the regulatory authority of the DOL; and does not modify a fiduciary’s obligations under Section 404 of ERISA. If and when the DOL decides to issue proposed regulations under the Act, it will not necessarily be starting cold, because the valuation factors it included in the 1988 proposed but never finalized regulations were based on Revenue Ruling 59-60. Aside from providing specific rules for determining methodology, the Act also varies from the original text by requiring only one standard that needs to be satisfied, i.e., a good faith standard. The pre-amendment language could be read, and was read by the DOL and some courts, as requiring a second test, namely that the good faith valuation be accurate as well, not accurate to the extent of a specific price but accurate within a reasonable range. What does Revenue Ruling 59-60 provide? It requires that fair market value be determined on the date of the transaction in question. Fair market value is the price that a willing buyer would pay to a willing seller, neither being under any compulsion to buy or sell and both being fully informed. The willing buyer and the willing seller are hypothetical people, rather than specific individuals or entities, and their characteristics may differ from the characteristics of the purchaser or seller. Thus, the hypothetical buyer may have more knowledge than the actual purchaser, and the hypothetical buyer may have undertaken greater due diligence efforts than the actual purchaser. Further, the hypothetical buyer and the hypothetical seller are presumed to be dedicated to achieving the maximum economic advantage. Application of the principles and methodologies of Revenue Ruling 59-60 will not preclude divergent and sometimes vastly different valuations between parties in litigation. Revenue Ruling 59-60 specifically provides that, “No general formula may be given that is applicable to the many different valuation situations arising in the valuation of such [closely held] stock.” It is a firmly established principle of tax law that valuation of stock is a question of fact depending upon the circumstances of the individual case and that same principle should apply in ERISA cases challenging the adequacy of consideration received by or paid by a plan. Consistent with the absence of a general formula for valuation, Revenue Ruling 59-60 required consideration of the following eight non-exclusive factors:

The nature of the business and the history of the enterprise from its inception
The economic outlook in general and the outlook of the specific industry in particular
The book value of the stock and the financial condition of the business
The earning capacity of the company
The dividend paying capacity of the company
Whether or not the company has good will or other intangible value
Sales of the stock and the size of the block to be valued
The market price of stocks of corporations engaged in the same or similar lines of business having their stock actively traded on the free and open market, either on an exchange or over the counter.

In recognition that a determination of fair market value is a question of fact and will depend upon the circumstances of each case, the ruling instructs appraisers to apply common sense, an informed judgment, and reasonableness in weighing the specific facts of a case and determining their aggregate significance. Revenue Ruling 59-60 further advised appraisers that because valuations cannot be made on the basis of a prescribed formula, there is no means by which the eight factors cited above can be assigned mathematical weight in determining fair market value. For this reason, no useful purpose would be served by taking an average of several factors and basing a fair market value on that result. Revenue Ruling 59-60 did state that earnings may be the most important criterion in some cases while asset value will receive primary considerations in others. An appraiser will give primary consideration to earnings when valuing companies which sell products and services to the public. In contrast, in the investment or holding type of company an appraiser may accord the greatest weight to the assets underlying the security.

* * * *

The Act may provide significant comfort to ESOP fiduciaries dealing with valuation and other fiduciary issues, and to plan sponsors and transaction counterparties involved in an ESOP transaction. At a minimum, the landscape has changed from a time in which much of the significant authority was contained in a decades-old, proposed regulation and a certain settlement agreement of no precedential value. Now, we have significant statutory guidance that follows an apparent change to the DOL’s enforcement priorities. If you have any questions regarding the Act, or about ESOPs more generally, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Federal Appeals Court Holds Recordkeeper Contract Can Be Plan Document

2026-10-15T15:23:21Z

Federal Appeals Court Holds Recordkeeper Contract Can Be Plan Document - Andrew Oringer, PLANSPONSOR, October 14, 2026 (PDF)

Retirement Industry Wants Firm ‘Meaningful Benchmarks’ Guidelines from Supreme Court to Cut Litigation Risk

2026-10-15T15:37:17Z

Retirement Industry Wants Firm ‘Meaningful Benchmarks’ Guidelines from Supreme Court to Cut Litigation Risk - Andrew Oringer, Pensions & Investments, October 8, 2026 (PDF)

Trader Joe’s Loses Duty to Monitor ‘Excessive’ Fees Count, but Prevails on Forfeiture, Investment Performance

2026-10-15T15:41:01Z

Trader Joe’s Loses Duty to Monitor ‘Excessive’ Fees Count, but Prevails on Forfeiture, Investment Performance - Andrew Oringer, PLANSPONSOR, October 8, 2026 (PDF)

Bally’s Class Action Launches Circuit Reviews of Smoking Penalties

2026-09-18T14:11:42Z

Bally’s Class Action Launches Circuit Reviews of Smoking Penalties - Andrew Oringer, Bloomberg Law, September 15, 2026 (PDF)

16 Attorneys from The Wagner Law Group to be Recognized in 2027 Edition of The Best Lawyers in America©

2026-09-08T19:24:40Z

16 Attorneys from The Wagner Law Group to be Recognized in 2027 Edition of The Best Lawyers in America^© - Marcia S. Wagner, Thomas E. Clark Jr., Andrew Oringer, Harold Ashner, David Gabor, Russell Gaudreau, Jr., Israel Goldowitz, Evelyn A. Haralampu, Mary B. Hevener, Eric R. Keller, Johanna L. Matloff, Mark Poerio, Anthony Provenzano, Linda Rosenzweig, Barry Salkin and Roberta Casper Watson, The Wagner Law Group Press Release, August 20, 2026 (PDF)

Tobacco Penalty Suit Frenzy Reveals Post-Loper Bright Disarray

2026-08-03T15:08:02Z

Tobacco Penalty Suit Frenzy Reveals Post-Loper Bright Disarray - Andrew Oringer, Bloomberg Law, July 30, 2026 (PDF)

DOL Audit Yields Recommendations for 3 Agencies

2026-07-08T12:28:19Z

DOL Audit Yields Recommendations for 3 Agencies - Andrew Oringer, PLANSPONOSR, July 8, 2026 (PDF)

Key Democrat Worries DOL Alts Rule Would Cause Public Markets to ‘Wither’

2026-07-01T11:48:39Z

Key Democrat Worries DOL Alts Rule Would Cause Public Markets to 'Wither' - Andrew Oringer, Wealth Management, June 30, 2026 (PDF)

Chambers USA Recognizes The Wagner Law Group and Attorneys Harold Ashner, Eric Keller, Andrew Oringer, Roberta Casper Watson and Stephen Wilkes

2026-06-08T14:24:59Z

Chambers USA Recognizes The Wagner Law Group and Attorneys Harold Ashner, Eric Keller, Andrew Oringer, Roberta Casper Watson and Stephen Wilkes - EIN Presswire, June 5, 2026 (PDF)

Cuts To Benefits Come With Risks For Employers, Attys Say

2026-06-04T11:49:59Z

Cuts To Benefits Come With Risks For Employers, Attys Say - Andrew Oringer, Law360, May 29, 2026 (PDF)

Department of Labor Proposes New Fiduciary Safe Harbor for Investment Selection in Defined Contribution Plans

2026-04-01T19:36:31Z

By Barry Salkin, Andrew Oringer, Stephen Wilkes and Ari Sonneberg Yesterday, March 31, 2026, the U.S. Department of Labor (the “DOL”) issued a proposed regulation (the “Proposed Regulation”) under the Employee Retirement Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) that would significantly clarify and meaningfully expand fiduciary discretion when selecting designated investment alternatives for participant‑directed defined contribution plans (including most 401(k) plans). The proposal responds to President Trump’s Executive Order 14330, Democratizing Access to Alternative Assets for 401(k) Investors (the “Executive Order”), and is expressly designed to reduce litigation risk while reaffirming ERISA’s long‑standing, process‑based fiduciary framework. Although prompted by concerns surrounding alternative investments, the Proposed Regulation would apply broadly to all designated investment alternatives and would arguably represent one of the most consequential shifts in ERISA fiduciary policy in decades. Comments on the proposal are due by June 1, 2026. Background and Purpose The Executive Order directed the DOL to clarify fiduciary obligations when asset allocation funds or other investments include alternative assets - such as investment vehicles that invest in private equity and credit, real estate, commodities, digital assets (such as cryptocurrency), infrastructure - and lifetime income strategies. The Executive Order specifically asked the DOL to consider “appropriately calibrated safe harbors” that would enable fiduciaries to exercise sound judgment without undue fear of litigation. The Proposed Regulation would go further than the Executive Order requested. Consistent with the DOL’s traditionally investment‑neutral approach, the Proposed Regulation does not favor or disfavor any particular asset class. Instead, it articulates a general, process‑driven standard for prudently selecting any designated investment alternative. The DOL is candid about its motivation: according to the DOL, the current ERISA litigation environment has chilled fiduciary decision‑making, discouraged innovation, and pushed plans toward defensive menu designs. The proposal is intended to realign ERISA practice with statutory text, trust‑law principles, and decades of judicial precedent. Three Foundational Principles The preamble to the Proposed Regulation identifies three principles that underpin the Proposed Regulation:

ERISA is grounded in process, not outcomes. Prudence is evaluated based on the fiduciary’s investigation and reasoning at the time of the decision - not by hindsight or subsequent performance. Indeed, many practitioners colloquially refer to the prudence standard as being one of “procedural prudence.”
ERISA affords fiduciaries broad discretion. The statute neither mandates nor prohibits specific investment types; fiduciaries may select among a wide range of reasonable options.
Courts should defer to fiduciaries who follow a prudent process. When fiduciaries act within a documented, reasonable decision‑making framework, their judgments should receive substantial judicial deference.

The third principle - judicial deference that would be implemented under the Proposed Regulation through a presumption of prudence - is likely to be the focal point of legal challenges. The DOL anticipates this risk and grounds the proposal in existing trust‑law concepts and its statutory authority under Section 505 of ERISA, which the DOL asserts supports its authority to establish fiduciary safe harbors. The Safe Harbor Framework At the core of the Proposed Regulation is a process‑based safe harbor. A fiduciary that objectively, thoroughly, and analytically evaluates relevant factors when selecting an investment is entitled to a presumption of prudence and significant judicial deference. The Proposed Regulation identifies six non‑exclusive factors that would ordinarily be central to the analysis:

Performance: Fiduciaries must consider risk‑adjusted expected returns over an appropriate time horizon, net of fees. The rule expressly rejects any requirement to select the highest‑returning option over short periods.
Fees: There is no requirement to choose the lowest‑cost investment. Fees are evaluated relative to value, services, and expected performance; and fiduciaries are not required to scour the entire marketplace. Performance‑based and incentive fees may be appropriate when justified.
Liquidity: Plans are not required to offer fully liquid investments. Fiduciaries may select investments with liquidity restrictions, including illiquid assets, when liquidity tradeoffs are reasonably balanced against potential diversification or risk‑adjusted returns, so long as participant‑ and plan‑level liquidity needs are responsibly addressed.
Valuation: Designated investment alternatives must be capable of timely and accurate valuation. For non‑public assets, the Proposed Regulation generally anticipates at least quarterly valuation using independent, conflict‑free methods consistent with a certain specified accounting standard (FASB ASC 820).
Performance Benchmarking: Each investment should be evaluated against a meaningful benchmark with comparable strategy, objectives, and risk profile. Importantly, the Proposed Regulation states that new or innovative investments are not disfavored merely because they lack long performance histories.
Complexity: Complexity alone does not render an investment imprudent. Consistently with the notion that ERISA fiduciaries must be “prudent experts” (a phrase informally used by many ERISA practitioners when referring to ERISA fiduciaries), the Proposed Regulation highlights that fiduciaries must themselves understand the investment or must prudently engage qualified professionals to assist with evaluation and oversight.

The proposal includes 20 detailed examples illustrating how fiduciaries may satisfy these factors in practice. Presumption of Prudence and Judicial Review If the safe harbor process is satisfied, the fiduciary’s judgment is presumed reasonable. The DOL envisions courts applying a deferential, abuse‑of‑discretion‑type review, with plaintiffs bearing the burden of proof. It is noted that, in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the doctrine it had previously adopted in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., and dramatically generally narrowed or possibly even eliminated the extent to which the courts need to defer to agency regulations in interpreting federal statutes. Anticipating questions about judicial authority, the DOL grounded the Proposed Regulation in Section 505 of ERISA and framed the Proposed Regulation as deserving of deference established by the Supreme Court in Skidmore v. Swift & Co, a pre-Loper Bright case under which an agency’s interpretation is entitled to deference by a court in proportion to its power to persuade. Scope and Limitations The Proposed Regulation would:

Apply only to the selection of designated investment alternatives.
Not apply to brokerage windows or self‑directed brokerage accounts.
Not address menu construction (which the DOL referred to as “curation”) or ongoing monitoring (although the DOL has signaled forthcoming guidance built on the same principles).
Not alter ERISA’s duty of loyalty or the prohibited‑transaction rules.

Practical Implications If finalized as proposed and upheld by the courts, the Proposed Regulation would potentially, among other things:

Reduce litigation risk for fiduciaries that document a prudent selection process.
Encourage innovation in plan menus, particularly within professionally managed vehicles such as target-date funds and managed accounts.
Reaffirm fiduciary flexibility to consider alternative assets thoughtfully.

It should be noted that the Executive Order also called upon the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC) to take action with respect to the definitions of accredited investor and qualified purchaser, but the SEC was not given a specific deadline to do so. It is possible that coordination with the SEC could be critical in addressing non-ERISA practical impediments to the use of alternative investments under participant-directed plans, and the Executive Order (which by its nature is at the presidential level), unlike certain previous DOL sub-regulatory guidance, expressly calls for inter-agency coordination in this context. Any SEC guidance would be issued separately, as would any companion guidance from the Department of the Treasury. Conclusion The Proposed Regulations represents a decisive shift back towards ERISA’s fundamental underlying principles: discretion, process, and deference. While legal challenges may well be likely, the Proposed Regulation, if finalized as proposed, would materially strengthen fiduciary confidence in making reasoned, well‑documented investment decisions and could meaningfully expand the range of prudent options available to retirement plan participants. We will continue to monitor developments and provide updates as the rulemaking progresses. If you have any questions about the Proposed Regulation, or any questions about ERISA’s fiduciary provisions, please feel free to contact us.

DOL’s Push to Curb 401(k) Suits Could Face Court Challenges

2026-04-01T13:41:32Z

DOL's Push to Curb 401(k) Suits Could Face Court Challenges - Andrew Oringer, Law360, March 31, 2026 (PDF)

A Retirement Saver Protection Rule Has Died — for the Second Time. What it Means for Investors

2026-04-01T13:34:19Z

A Retirement Saver Protection Rule Has Died — for the Second Time. What it Means for Investors - Andrew Oringer, CNBC, March 30, 2026 (PDF)

401(k) Alternative Asset Rule Proposed by Labor Department

2026-04-01T13:37:12Z

401(k) Alternative Asset Rule Proposed by Labor Department - Andrew Oringer, CNBC, March 30, 2026 (PDF)

Should You Plan to Address “Plan Assets” Questions Under ERISA?

2026-03-27T15:48:50Z

A recent judicial decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, decided yesterday, March 26, 2026, shows the importance of the “plan assets” analysis under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”). If an employee benefit plan’s acquisition of an equity interest (as determined for these purposes) in an entity causes the entity’s assets to be “plan assets,” then those with discretionary authority or control over the entity or who provide investment advice to the entity may be fiduciaries, with responsibilities and potential liability under ERISA. Powell v. Ocwen Financial Corporation, a case emanating from the sub-prime crisis circa 2010, is on detailed facts in the context of what are known as securitization transactions (and, more specifically, securitization transactions under the so-called “underwriter exemptions”), so the case might not have direct applicability for the general market. Nonetheless, Ocwen (which, for people who care about such things, is Newco spelled backwards) presents a cautionary tale for those who wonder whether the courts will ever be ready, as a practical matter, to delve into the intricacies of the Department of Labor regulation that defines when an entity’s assets are considered plan assets (the “Regulation”). The court embarked on a learned exploration of the application of the Regulation to distinctions between debt and equity that even addressed the nuances surrounding notes as compared with trust certificates. And the court also addressed, even if preliminarily, not only the plan-assets question but also the question of whether, in the face of plan assets, a service provider might have fiduciary authority. The case now goes back to the district court for further exploration. A possible object lesson here is that the fundamental plan-assets analysis, however arcane, may really matter. When one considers the risks surrounding unresolved or otherwise close questions, there may be an understandable tendency to wonder whether there have been actual circumstances in which a technical ERISA analysis has had genuine practical implications. While sometimes the answer may appear to be “no,” perhaps the better response may now be “not yet.” We at The Wagner Law Group stand ready to advise on plan-assets inquiries or any other matters arising under the fiduciary provisions of ERISA. [author] [author_image timthumb='on']https://www.wagnerlawgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/1104921/2022/12/andrew-oringer.png[/author_image] [author_info]Andrew Oringer heads the firm’s New York office and serves as its General Counsel. His expertise extends to a broad array of issues relating to ERISA and executive compensation. He advises clients regarding their pension and welfare plans and arrangements, benefits-related tax matters and fiduciary issues arising in connection with the investment of plan assets, and has extensive experience with executive compensation representing employers as well as individual executives.[/author_info] [/author]

How Retirement Fiduciaries Can Help Health Plan Fiduciaries

2026-04-01T13:15:55Z

How Retirement Fiduciaries Can Help Health Plan Fiduciaries - Andrew Oringer, planadviser, March 27, 2026 (PDF)

Appeals Court Ruling Upends Path for ERISA Class Actions

2026-03-19T14:52:58Z

Appeals Court Ruling Upends Path for ERISA Class Actions - Andrew Oringer, PLANSPONSOR, March 17, 2026 (PDF)

Dead Yet! – The NeverEnding Story of the Amended Fiduciary Rule Has Ended . . . for Now

2026-03-16T16:16:17Z

by Andrew Oringer In prior Alerts, we have chronicled in some detail recent developments relating to the so-called Amended Fiduciary Rule under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") and its later incarnation, the Retirement Security Rule. Five of our recent Alerts may be found here, here, here, here, and here. Because of the extensive background laid out in our prior Alerts, it is not repeated here. When we last left what looked like it could be a NeverEnding Story that started at least three presidential administrations ago, the DOL had filed a motion with the Fifth Circuit "to dismiss its appeals" in Federation of Americans for Consumer Choice, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Labor and American Council of Life Insurers v. U.S. Department of Labor. Last week, on March 12, 2025, the District Court for the Eastern District of Texas expressly approved the unopposed motion in the FACC case to vacate the Retirement Security Rule. So there you have it. When we reported in November 2025 on the DOL's motion to dismiss its appeals, we stated that "[t]he Never-Ending Story may well have ended." Well, it now indeed definitively has. But the impact of the DOL's initiative may live on. As examples, the "best interest" regulation of the Securities and Exchange Commission draws significantly from the now-defunct Amended Fiduciary Rule; various states have pursued and may continue to pursue best-interest initiatives regarding the conduct of financial-services organizations; and the market for investment services may have shifted in some quarters to a more fiduciary-based model, which is a trend that may continue here and there even in the absence of the Retirement Security Rule. In addition, indications (including in the DOL's Regulatory Agenda) are that the DOL may propose further revisions. However, it would not be surprising if any upcoming activity is not in furtherance of, and may even be in some ways contrary to, prior regulatory efforts. There are now decisions to be made by financial services institutions about next steps. Will some institutions want to continue complying with the conditions of whatever is left of Prohibited Transaction Class Exemption 2020-02, whether out of concern about fiduciary status or an affirmative willingness to act as a fiduciary? And, for those institutions that do not believe they are fiduciaries and do not wish to be fiduciaries, maybe, just maybe, it will finally be time to consider whether to dismantle the compliance procedures they have laboriously constructed, if they have not already started that consideration. As one further cautionary note, we do not know for sure what will happen under future administrations. Maybe, just maybe, the NeverEnding Story will find its way to a sequel. We at The Wagner Law Group stand ready to advise on these or any other matters arising under the fiduciary provisions of ERISA. [author] [author_image timthumb='on']https://www.wagnerlawgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/1104921/2022/12/andrew-oringer.png[/author_image] [author_info]Andrew Oringer heads the firm’s New York office and serves as its General Counsel. His expertise extends to a broad array of issues relating to ERISA and executive compensation. He advises clients regarding their pension and welfare plans and arrangements, benefits-related tax matters and fiduciary issues arising in connection with the investment of plan assets, and has extensive experience with executive compensation representing employers as well as individual executives.[/author_info] [/author]

4th Circ. Genworth Ruling Raises Bar For ERISA Class Actions

2026-03-19T15:01:24Z

4th Circ. Genworth Ruling Raises Bar For ERISA Class Actions - Andrew Oringer, Law360, March 13, 2026 (PDF)