Israel Goldowitz | The Wagner Law Group

Supreme Court Decision on Multiemployer Plan Valuation May Increase Withdrawal Liability Assessments

2026-06-03T19:50:02Z

By Israel Goldowitz Withdrawn employers have always sought to minimize withdrawal liability, while multiemployer plans have sought to maximize it. The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) has sought to protect plan participants and the multiemployer insurance fund while balancing the interests of continuing employers and withdrawn employers. The recent Supreme Court decision in M&K Employee Solutions v. Trustees of the IAM National Pension Fund (May 21, 2026) https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/23-1209_i3kn.pdf reflects these tensions. In M&K, the Court considered what ERISA means when it requires a withdrawal liability valuation “as of” the valuation date. Agreeing with the PBGC and with standard actuarial practice, the Court held that the valuation may be done after the valuation date as long as the actuary considers only facts in existence on that date. For multiemployer plans, minimum funding is based on assumptions (including interest and mortality) that are “reasonable” and represent the actuary’s “best estimate” of anticipated plan experience. That is also true for withdrawal liability purposes. In January 2018, the IAM Fund’s actuary changed the prior year’s interest assumption as of December 31, 2017, for withdrawals during 2018, from 7.5 percent to 6.5 percent. A lower interest rate yields a higher present value of vested benefits. The 100-basis point reduction increased M&K’s liability more than threefold, from $1.8 million to $6.2 million. The increase was so large because the interest rate affects the value of the plan’s vested benefits but not the value of plan assets. M&K asserted that the Fund must use the 7.5 percent assumption, as it did not change the assumption by December 31, 2017. An arbitrator agreed, but the district court reversed, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld the district court. The appellate court reasoned that the “best estimate” standard permits the actuary to set assumptions after the valuation date as long as they are “based on the body of knowledge available up to the valuation date.” The Supreme Court unanimously affirmed, holding that, in context, “as of” is “understood to ‘assign an event to one time and the recognition of it to another.’” Thus, the facts must exist on the valuation date, but the valuation may be performed after that date. And an assumption is not a fact but a valuation tool, adopted when the need for a valuation arises. ERISA itself has no deadline for setting assumptions, the Court continued, and ERISA’s “best estimate” standard supports the conclusion that assumptions may be set after the valuation date. Data may not be available until after the valuation date. Forcing an actuary to set assumptions by that date could result in assumptions that do not reflect her best estimate. And the mismatch between recent data and older assumptions would make for an “incoherent statutory scheme.” The M&K decision does not affect plans that receive Special Financial Assistance (SFA). Those plans must use PBGC “closeout” assumptions, which are meant to reflect market prices for insurance company annuities and are usually more conservative than funding assumptions. PBGC requires that by regulation as a condition of the plan’s receipt of SFA. The M&K decision does not directly affect plans’ use of a “blended” interest rate, which averages closeout and funding interest rates. Employers have successfully challenged such rates as not representing the actuary’s “best estimate,” as there cannot be one best estimate for funding purposes and another for withdrawal liability purposes. Nor does the decision address PBGC’s authority to prescribe withdrawal liability valuation assumptions by regulation, as the Court stated. PBGC issued a proposed regulation in October 2022 that would allow a plan to use closeout rates, its funding rate, or any rate in between, without regard to the “best estimate” standard. The proposed regulation is designed to reduce risk shifting by withdrawn employers to continuing employers, plan participants, and the insurance fund. The current Administration has not said whether it will issue the rule as proposed, modify it, or take other action.

***

The Wagner Law Group was on the brief for an amicus in M&K in support of the Fund. We are experts in ERISA litigation, advice, and legal policy, including PBGC and multiemployer plan issues. We would be happy to discuss your needs in those areas. [author] [author_image timthumb='on']https://www.wagnerlawgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/1101401/2021/07/Israel-Goldowitz-1.jpg[/author_image] [author_info]Israel Goldowitz has over 40 years of experience. He was the Chief Counsel for the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC). He led the legal teams that helped save the pensions of such companies as Chrysler and American Airlines. [/author_info] [/author]

Washington, D.C. Office Benefits Bulletin Newsletter

2026-06-02T19:17:43Z

Our periodic Washington D.C. newsletter highlights the expertise of our Wagner Law Group attorneys analyzing legislative, regulatory and other cutting-edge benefits issues arising from activity in Washington or other important jurisdictions. Our office members are well suited for this given many of them have decades of experience working in key governmental agencies such as the Department of Labor (“DOL”) and Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (“PBGC”). This edition of our Benefits Bulletin has articles analyzing:

the DOL’s proposed regulation clarifying and expanding fiduciary discretion when selecting designated investment alternatives for 401(k) and other defined contribution plans
two recent PGGC announcements regarding amicus brief and opinion letter programs
an upcoming compliance deadline for 2024 amendments to Regulation S-P
a recent Fourth Circuit opinion holding Merrill Lynch Wealth Choice Awards Are Not an ERISA Pension Plan

DOL Issues Proposed Rule on Alternative Assets By Camille Castro and Stephen Wilkes On March 31, 2026, the Department of Labor (the “DOL”) issued a proposed regulation that would clarify and expand fiduciary discretion when selecting designated investment alternatives for 401(k) and other defined contribution plans. The proposal responds to Executive Order 14330, “Democratizing Access to Alternative Assets for 401(k) Investors,” which called for expanded access to private market investments and other alternative assets in retirement plans. The Executive Order directed the DOL to reexamine guidance and clarify the DOL’s position on fiduciary process regarding alternative assets, including considering “appropriately calibrated safe harbors.” The DOL’s proposed rule goes beyond the Executive Order by proposing an asset-neutral approach that involves a general, process-driven safe harbor for prudently selecting any designated investment alternative. The proposal emphasizes how ERISA is grounded in process, not outcomes, noting how prudence is evaluated based on the fiduciary’s reasoning at the time of the decision, not by hindsight. The proposed rule also confirms that fiduciaries have broad discretion to select investment types and emphasizes that plan fiduciaries who follow a prudent process should be given judicial deference by the courts. The proposed rule establishes a process-based safe harbor, which involves six non-exhaustive factors that should be evaluated by plan fiduciaries. These factors include (1) performance; (2) fees; (3) liquidity; (4) valuation; (5) performance benchmarking; and (6) complexity. Under the proposed safe harbor, there is a presumption of prudence if a fiduciary objectively, thoroughly, and analytically evaluates the listed factors when selecting an investment. The proposal includes detailed examples illustrating how the factors can be satisfied in practice. The proposed rule also notes that significant judicial deference should be given to fiduciaries that meet the safe harbor’s requirements. Public comments on the rule are due by June 1, 2026. To date, over 25,000 comments have been received, demonstrating the deep public interest in the proposal. For a deeper dive into the DOL’s proposed rule and its practical implications, see the Overview of the Proposed Regulation by the Wagner Law Group. PBGC To Expand Its Influence Through Opinion Letters and Amicus Briefs By Israel Goldowitz Two recent Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation announcements provide opportunities to obtain compliance assistance and participate in the development of law and policy concerning the federal pension insurance system. On March 17, 2026, PBGC announced a “relaunch” of its Opinion Letter Program. https://www.pbgc.gov/news/press/pr26-003. The agency stated that the initiative “provides meaningful compliance assistance to the public by answering questions about how PBGC would apply the law to specific factual circumstances.” And on May 7, 2026, the agency announced the “launch” of its Amicus Brief Program. https://www.pbgc.gov/employers-practitioners/legal-resources/amicus-curiae-program. Also part of the agency’s compliance assistance efforts, the program “establishes a process for private parties to request that the agency file an amicus brief in cases with potential implications for PBGC or the broader private pension system.” As part of these announcements, PBGC published procedures for seeking an opinion letter or amicus participation. Among other things, an opinion letter request must contain a detailed description of the acts or transactions at issue (including any larger act or transaction of which they are part), an analysis of any documents submitted, and an explanation of the grounds for reaching a particular answer (if sought) and in any event the requestor’s views with citations to authority. The opinion letter procedures also address such matters as who may seek an opinion letter, withdrawal of an opinion letter request, situations in which the agency will not issue an opinion letter, and who may rely on an opinion letter and in what circumstances. An amicus brief request must state, among other things, the requestor’s interest in the case, whether there is a challenge to Title IV, PBGCs regulations, or informal guidance such as an opinion letter, whether the requestor wants the agency to advocate for a particular outcome, and, if so, how that outcome would affect PBGC’s interests or the integrity of the private pension system more broadly, and how that outcome would align with prior PBGC positions or court rulings. PBGC’s Use of Opinion Letters and Amicus Briefs PBGC has often staked out positions on major issues in opinion letters and amicus briefs. Opinion Letter 91-1 (Jan. 14, 1991) provides a good illustration. There, the Agency’s General Counsel stated that ERISA does not authorize PBGC to guarantee benefits under annuity contracts distributed in a standard termination where the insurer later fails. At the time, there were incentives to terminate overfunded plans to capture surplus assets. With some insurers considered risky, some saw PBGC as the insurer of last resort for failed annuity issuers. The General Counsel reasoned that the “insurable event" for a single-employer plan is plan termination. For example, ERISA Section 4022(a) provides that PBGC shall guarantee benefits under a single-employer plan “which terminates.” And Section 4061 provides that the agency shall pay benefits under a plan “terminated under this title . . . .” That being so, a proper final distribution of plan assets completes the standard termination process and accordingly, “extinguishes the PBGC's statutory guarantee obligation”: PBGC does not stand behind benefits distributed in a lump sum payment, nor protect from subsequent loss a participant who chooses to “roll over” a lump sum distribution into an Individual Retirement Account. . . . Similarly, the failure of an insurance company subsequent to a proper distribution of plan assets through the purchase of annuity contracts does not result in an insurable event or reinstate the PBGC guarantee. The General Counsel buttressed her conclusion by reviewing how the insurance program is financed. Under ERISA, insurance premiums continue to accrue until, but only until, a plan's assets are distributed in a standard termination. “Obviously, had Congress intended the PBGC to guarantee against a subsequent failure of the insurance company from which annuities were purchased, it would have designed a premium structure to protect PBGC against that continued exposure.” The Persuasive Power of PBGC Opinion Letters and Amicus Briefs PBGC has never claimed more than the “power to persuade” under Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (1944) for its opinion letters. An opinion letter would not have been entitled to “deference” under Chevron USA v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984). Nor would a position an agency takes in an amicus brief, at least on questions not plainly governed by agency regulations. But a persuasive opinion letter or amicus brief may represent the “best” interpretation under Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024). For instance, in Beck v. PACE Int’l Union, 551 U.S. 96 (2007), the Supreme Court agreed with PBGC that a plan merger is not a way of closing out a plan in a standard termination. The Court held that PBGC’s view is a “permissible one, and indeed the more plausible.” In language that evokes Opinion Letter 91-1, the Court reasoned that, in a closeout, “[t]he assets of the plan are wholly removed from the ERISA system. . . . Merger is fundamentally different: it represents a continuation rather than a cessation of the ERISA regime.” PBGC Objectives PBGC has historically sought to leverage its resources through regulations and informal guidance, including opinion letters, though that program has been largely dormant for several decades. Its amicus program has always been active, including support of the Solicitor General on a withdrawal liability issue in M & K Employee Solutions v. IAM Natl Pension Fund in the current Supreme Court Term. Until now, the agency has not provided an official process for seeking an opinion letter or amicus support, or the criteria it will apply. Successfully invoking these processes will require a sense of the agency’s historical views, its priorities, and its general approach to legal policy matters. In our experience, PBGC is mainly interested in the proper development of pension insurance law and policy. For instance, Opinion Letter 91-1 and PBGC’s position in Beck mainly reflect concern for the integrity of the pension insurance system. It is therefore important to understand the agency’s thinking in a given area and on the pension insurance system as a whole.

***

Wagner Law Group’s Washington, DC office represents more than 100 years’ experience in senior positions at PBGC in litigation, regulations, legal policy, benefit policy, actuarial, financial, and ombuds functions, and more than 100 years’ in representing clients with PBGC issues. If we can assist you with a PBGC matter, including an opinion letter or amicus brief request, please contact one of us. Compliance Reminder: Implementation of Regulation S-P Amendments By Camille Castro and Stephen Wilkes June 3, 2026, is the deadline for “smaller entities,” defined as those with less than $1.5 billion in assets under management, to comply with the 2024 amendments to Regulation S-P. The amendments impose new requirements related to incident response program obligations and data breach notifications, among other items. The amendments, which have been in effect for larger entities since December 3, 2025, apply to registered investment advisors, broker-dealers, investment companies, funding portals, and transfer agents (collectively, the “covered entities”). Under the new requirements, covered entities must establish and implement written policies and procedures regarding detection, response, and recovery from data security breach incidents. These policies and procedures must address the oversight and monitoring of service providers that handle customer data to ensure that appropriate safeguards are in place to protect such information and provide notification within 72 hours to the covered institution of any data breach. Additionally, the amendments require notification to customers within 30 days of any breach involving “sensitive customer data,” such as Social Security numbers, account information, or passwords, that could cause significant harm or inconvenience to the customer. Covered entities are also required to retain written records documenting customer data security-related policies, procedures, investigations, and other related documents. The amendment also codifies an exception to the requirement to provide an annual privacy notice if the covered entity has not changed its privacy policies since the last notice and does not share nonpublic personal information with non-affiliates. Fourth Circuit Holds Merrill Lynch Wealth Choice Awards Are Not an ERISA Pension Plan By Eric Keller Section 3(2) of ERISA provides that an “employee pension benefit plan” subject to ERISA includes any plan or program that “results in a deferral of income by employees for periods extending beyond termination of covered of employment or beyond”. On the other hand, a DOL regulation states an “’employee pension benefit plan’ … shall not include payments made by an employer to some or all of its employees as bonuses for work performed, unless such payments are systematically deferred to the termination of covered employment or beyond”. Last month, the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed a district court’s holding that “Wealth Choice Awards” granted by Merrill Lynch to select financial advisor employees were bonuses exempt from ERISA’s definition of employee pension benefit plan even though some individuals who received payments under the awards were former Merrill Lynch employees. Milligan v. Lynch, 173 F.4^th 128 (4^th Cir. 2026). The awards in question were earned and vested if the employee remained employed with Merrill Lynch for eight years after the grant date. Payments were made within 2½ months after the vesting date. Generally unvested awards were forfeited upon termination of employment, but there were exceptions in the event of death, disability, retirement or involuntary termination as part of a reduction-in-force whereby unvested payments were vested and paid following termination of employment. The plaintiff argued these exceptions caused the awards to systematically defer employee income to periods extending beyond termination of employment triggering ERISA pension plan coverage and causing the eight-year vesting requirement to be unlawful under ERISA. Because it was undisputed that between 2018 and 2014, 92% of the recipients of payments under the awards were current employees and only 8% were former employees, the court found the payments “cannot be said to be ‘systematically deferred to the termination of covered employment or beyond’.” In addition, the court noted the following additional facts that supported its conclusion the awards were exempt bonuses rather than an ERISA pension plan: (i) the purpose of the awards was to encourage high-performing employees to remain employed with Merrill Lynch and not provide retirement benefits, (ii) the awards were limited to high-performing advisors and not available to all employees, (iii) the awards are not funded with money employees would otherwise be immediately entitled to receive; (iv) the awards were not funded, and (v) employees could not choose to defer payment until termination of employment or beyond. [author] [author_image timthumb='on']/wp-content/uploads/sites/1101401/2025/07/castro_camille-1.jpg[/author_image] [author_info]With over a decade of experience in pension and employee benefits law, Camille brings a wealth of experience in matters related to ERISA and pension plans. Her career at PBGC has provided Camille with a unique understanding of federal pension insurance programs and the intricacies of government regulations that impact plan sponsors, fiduciaries, and participants.[/author_info] [/author] [author] [author_image timthumb='on']https://www.wagnerlawgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/1101401/2023/04/StephenWilkes.jpg[/author_image] [author_info]Stephen Wilkes heads the firm's Investment Management Law practice. He also is a Practice Group leader for the firm's ERISA Fiduciary Compliance and Independent Fiduciary practices. Steve advises a national client base of mutual funds, CIFs, private funds, registered investment advisers, insurance companies, broker dealers, wealth management firms, banks, trust companies, third-party platform providers, Taft Hartley Funds and plan sponsors on ERISA, tax, and related securities law issues. [/author_info] [/author] [author] [author_image timthumb='on']https://www.wagnerlawgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/1101401/2021/07/Israel-Goldowitz-1.jpg[/author_image] [author_info]Israel Goldowitz has over 40 years of experience. He was the Chief Counsel for the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC). He led the legal teams that helped save the pensions of such companies as Chrysler and American Airlines. [/author_info] [/author] [author] [author_image timthumb='on']https://www.wagnerlawgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/1101401/2025/01/eric-keller.png[/author_image] [author_info] Eric Keller has focused his practice on executive compensation, employee benefits, and workforce restructuring matters.[/author_info] [/author]

The Wagner Law Group’s Washington, D.C. Office Benefits Bulletin Newsletter

2026-02-18T18:05:16Z

Our periodic Washington D.C. newsletter highlights the expertise of our Wagner Law Group attorneys analyzing legislative, regulatory and other cutting-edge benefits issues arising from activity in Washington or other important jurisdictions. Our office members are well suited for this given many of them have decades of experience working in key governmental agencies such as the Department of Labor and Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (“PBGC”). This edition of our Benefits Bulletin has articles analyzing:

recent pharmacy benefit manager developments and updates
PBGC seeks Supreme Court review of scope of special financial assistance
PBGC Advocate Annual Report Highlights and other PBGC updates; and
HHS asks Fifth Circuit to reverse federal district court opinion declaring current regulatory framework for assessing the Affordable Care Act’s employer mandate excise taxes is void and unenforceable

Recent Pharmacy Benefit Manager Developments and Updates By Camille Castro and Stephen Wilkes Pharmacy Benefit Managers (“PBMs”) continue to remain at the center of significant regulatory, legislative, and legal activity. This activity has largely focused on oversight measures to improve disclosure and transparency into PBM compensation and practices so plan fiduciaries can evaluate whether such arrangements are prudent and in the best interest of participants. The recently enacted Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2026 (the “Act”), which was signed into law February 3, 2026, included several PBM oversight and transparency reforms. The Act requires PBMs to provide group health plan sponsors with periodic disclosures of pricing data and to report on any self-steering practices that require patients to use PBM-affiliated pharmacies. The Act also requires PBMs to pass through 100 percent of negotiated rebates and fees to group health plans. These reforms are effective for plan years beginning on or after 30 months from February 3, 2026. The Department of Labor (the “DOL”) also recently issued proposed regulations that would impose similar reporting and disclosure requirements on PBMs. The proposed rule implements the “Lowering Drug Prices by Once Again Putting Americans First” Executive Order, which directed the DOL to propose regulations under ERISA section 408(b)(2)(B) to improve plan fiduciary transparency into direct and indirect compensation received by PBMs. The proposed rule requires PBMs to provide a series of disclosures regarding direct and indirect compensation, actual compensation (such as rebates, fees, and other payments), and any conflicts of interest. The proposed rule provides new audit rights for plan fiduciaries, requiring that PBMs provide all requested information. It also includes a new proposed administrative class exemption in the event a plan fiduciary does not receive the required disclosures from the PBM. Comments on the proposed rule are due by March 31, 2026. These federal legislative and regulatory updates come at a time when multiple states have also proposed or enacted similar legislative measures to regulate PBM activity. These state legislative efforts have prompted a series of challenges in court, with many still pending resolution. As PBM reform continues to evolve, plan fiduciaries should continue to monitor and consider the broader impact of these reforms and how they may affect their duties related to PBMs. The Wagner Law Group has significant expertise and experience advising on PBM issues as both legal counsel and Independent Fiduciary for health plans. PBGC Seeks Supreme Court Review of Scope of Special Financial Assistance By Israel Goldowitz On December 12, 2025, PBGC filed a certiorari petition in the Bakery Drivers Local 550 Pension Fund case. The petition asks the Supreme Court to review a Second Circuit decision that could extend coverage of the Special Financial Assistance (SFA) program to more than 100 multiemployer plans that terminated before 2020, at a cost of $6 billion. A response to the petition is due March 23. Congress enacted the SFA program as part of the COVID-era American Rescue Plan Act of 2021. SFA is a lump sum grant of taxpayer funds that allows a multiemployer plan that was in “critical and declining” status in any plan year beginning in 2020 through 2022 to pay benefits through 2051. In October 2022, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that PBGC would disburse $90 billion in SFA. Though September 2025, PBGC has disbursed $74 billion to 174 plans. Congress defined a “critical and declining” plan under ERISA’s minimum funding standard as a plan that is expected to become insolvent within 15 to 20 years (depending on its inactive:active participant ratio or funding level). When a plan terminates by the withdrawal of all employers, however, the minimum funding standard no longer applies. PBGC therefore took the position that a plan that terminated before 2020 does not qualify for SFA. The Bakery Drivers Fund terminated in 2016 by withdrawal of all employers. The Bakery Drivers union and a withdrawn employer, Bimbo Bakeries USA, tried to restart the plan in late 2020 by having Bimbo re-enter as a contributing employer. That, they hoped, would allow the Fund to qualify for SFA as a non-terminated critical and declining status plan, and in turn allow the Fund to pay benefits at plan levels through 2051. The Fund is now receiving traditional PBGC financial assistance, which covers benefits only at guaranteed levels. PBGC refused to recognize the restart and denied the Fund’s application for SFA because the Fund was not in critical and declining status for any 2020-2022 plan year, as the minimum funding standard ceased to apply when the plan terminated in 2016. The Fund disagreed, asserting that when Congress adopted the definition of “critical and declining” for SFA purposes, it did not include the portion of the definition that tied it to non-terminated status. The Fund sued PBGC in federal court for the Eastern District of New York, which agreed with the PBGC. The Second Circuit reversed the district court, holding that Congress effectively “cut and pasted” the definition of critical and declining status into the SFA eligibility requirement without regard to its context as part of ERISA’s minimum funding standard. The Second Circuit did not address whether a terminated plan could be restarted by the re-entry of one employer. Though there is no circuit split, PBGC (represented by the Solicitor General) asserts that the case warrants Supreme Court review because courts must consider a statute’s “text and context,” not “a one-size-fits-all approach to cross-references,” and because the decision could result in the payment of $6 billion in taxpayer dollars and strain PBGC’s resources in processing applications from potentially affected plans. Indeed, it could result in approvals by default, as an SFA application is deemed approved if PBGC does not act on it within 120 days. If the Court denies the petition, PBGC could acquiesce in the Second Circuit’s decision and apply its holding nationwide. It could seek a split of circuits, denying applications of terminated plans based in other circuits and acquiesce only if it lost in at least one more circuit. And through its Board members, the Secretaries of Labor, Treasury, and Commerce, it could ask Congress either to validate the Second Circuit’s decision or overrule it Taxpayer “rescues” (or “bailouts”) are always controversial. But union members and retirees are voters. It will therefore be worth watching not only PBGC’s actions on this issue but those of its Board members, the White House, and Congress. PBGC Advocate Annual Report Highlights and Other PBGC Updates By Camille Castro The Participant and Plan Sponsor Advocate (the “Advocate”) and the Office of the Advocate at the PBGC play an important role in helping participants and defined benefit plan sponsors. The Advocate, which is a statutory position under ERISA section 4004, advocates for the rights of participants in plans trusteed by the PBGC and assists both defined benefit plan sponsors and participants in resolving disputes with the agency. Each year, the Advocate is statutorily required to submit an annual report on its activities, priorities, and recommendations for changes to mitigate participant and plan sponsor issues with the PBGC. On December 18, 2025, the Advocate issued its FY 2025 Annual Report (the “Report”) detailing the Office of the Advocate’s achievements, activities, and notable areas for improvement. The Report highlighted Office of the Advocate internal improvements, including a new case management system, the launch of an educational resource library on the Advocate’s website, and the continued success of the Advocate’s online self-help tool for pension tracing cases. The Report also detailed notable participant initiatives, including efforts to improve education and communications around survivor benefits and dividing benefits in divorce. Additionally, the Report described customer service-related challenges and the Advocate’s efforts to coordinate internally within PBGC to resolve these issues and improve the agency’s processes. The Report also highlighted the Office of the Advocate’s activities involving plan sponsors, including addressing issues that can arise when a plan is undergoing a distress termination, resolving concerns related to the timing for coverage determinations, and engaging with small plan sponsors to identify ways the Advocate can assist these plan sponsors. The Report indicated that the Office of the Advocate expects to collaborate with various departments within PBGC to implement the Report’s recommendations and address ongoing participant and plan sponsor concerns in FY 2026. Additionally, recent reporting from the PBGC confirms that both the Single-Employer and Multiemployer Programs continue to have a strong financial position. Notably, the Agency’s FY 2025 Annual Report, issued January 27, 2026, indicates that the Single-Employer Program had a positive net position of $62.2 billion as of September 30, 2025. PBGC projects that this program’s surplus is expected to grow to an estimated average of $105 billion in 2034 in its FY 2024 Projections Report, issued January 27, 2026, prompting questions from the agency’s stakeholders about single-employer premium reform given this sound financial position. Whether you are a participant or plan sponsor, if you want to know more about working with the PBGC, contact the PBGC-focused Practice Group at the Wagner Law Group for more information. HHS Asks Fifth Circuit to Reverse Federal District Court Opinion Declaring Current Regulatory Framework for Assessing Excise Taxes Under the Affordable Care Act’s Employer Mandate is Void and Unenforceable By Eric Keller In April of last year, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas declared that a Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) regulation published in 2013 as part of the rulemaking for the Affordable Care Act’s employer mandate was void and unenforceable. As a result, the court held that the employer who requested the declaration was not liable for excises taxes paid to the Internal Revenue Service under Section 4980H of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and was entitled to a full refund of the taxes. For a discussion of the decision and its potential ramifications, please see our April 2025 D.C. Office Benefits Bulletin article. https://www.wagnerlawgroup.com/blog/2025/04/federal-district-court-declares-current-regulatory-framework-for-assessing-excise-taxes-under-the-affordable-care-acts-employer-mandate-is-void-and-unenforceable/ HHS has now appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit asking the court to reverse the district court’s ruling.

The Wagner Law Group’s Washington, D.C. Office Benefits Bulletin Newsletter

2026-02-05T13:14:52Z

Our periodic Washington D.C. newsletter highlights the expertise of our Wagner Law Group attorneys analyzing legislative, regulatory and other cutting-edge benefits issues arising from activity in Washington or other important jurisdictions. Our office members are well suited for this, given many of them have decades of experience working in key governmental agencies such as the Department of Labor and Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. This edition of our Benefits Bulletin has articles analyzing:

how PBGC reportable events may be triggered in various non-intuitive circumstances
when engaging an independent fiduciary is required or may be warranted; and
recent appellate court decisions involving the calculation of multiemployer pension plan withdrawal liability.

[ez-toc]

Watch Out for PBGC Reportable Events!

By Harold Ashner A PBGC reportable event is an event that may be indicative of a need to terminate a PBGC-covered single-employer pension plan. Some reportable events are plan events (e.g., an inability to pay benefits when due), and others are corporate events (e.g., a change in the plan’s controlled group or a loan default involving a controlled group member). PBGC uses reportable event filings as a key trigger for its “Early Warning Program,” under which PBGC may threaten to seek involuntary termination of a plan or seek security or other protection as the “price” for its forbearance. Failure to comply with the reportable events rules can lead to exposure to PBGC penalties, up to a maximum of $2,739 per day for each day of delinquency. Fortunately, PBGC is not required to (and does not often) assess penalties, and has “guideline” penalties—$25 per day for the first 90 days and $50 per day thereafter, with special relief rules for smaller plans—that are far below the maximum level. But it’s still of course best to avoid having a reporting delinquency. Avoiding reporting delinquencies can be challenging, as reporting is required sporadically rather than on a predictable, periodic basis; the events that may trigger reporting can relate only to some foreign or otherwise distant member of the plan’s controlled group; and the rules contain requirements that do not always track what one might intuitively expect. For example, consider the rules relating to a change in the plan’s controlled group (29 C.F.R. § 4043.29). Post-event reporting is required (generally within 30 days) “when there is a transaction that results, or will result, in one or more persons’ . . . ceasing to be a member of the plan’s controlled group (other than by merger involving members of the same controlled group)” (emphasis added). And the term “transaction” for this purpose “includes, but is not limited to, a legally binding agreement,” with “legally binding” determined “without regard to any conditions in the agreement” (emphasis added). Thus, reporting may be required even if the change is months or years away, and even if it never occurs, perhaps because of the failure to meet the “conditions” that are to be disregarded for reporting purposes. Another example involves the rules relating to “loan default” reportable events (29 C.F.R. § 4043.34), which can occur “with respect to a loan with an outstanding balance of $10 million or more to a member of the plan’s controlled group.” The rules treat any default under the loan agreement as reportable, with no exception for minor or technical defaults. And they also capture, as reportable loan defaults, situations in which there is no default because the lender “waives or agrees to an amendment of any covenant in the loan agreement the effect of which is to cure or avoid a breach that would trigger a default” (emphasis added). For a more detailed discussion of the reporting rules and some related “traps for the unwary,” with a focus on post-event reporting (as advance reporting applies only to a relatively small group of privately-held controlled groups with significantly underfunded plans), see “Surprise—You Just Missed a PBGC Reportable Events Deadline!” [author] [author_image timthumb='on']https://www.wagnerlawgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/1101401/2023/04/HJA.jpg[/author_image] [author_info]Harold J. Ashner advises and represents clients on a wide variety of employee benefits matters, with an emphasis on PBGC issues. He served as Assistant General Counsel for Legislation and Regulations at PBGC, where he drafted or supervised virtually all regulations and policies issued by PBGC from 1988 until he left the agency in 2005.[/author_info] [/author]

Spotlight on the Role of the Independent Fiduciary

By Camille Castro and Stephen Wilkes There are a variety of situations under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (“ERISA”) warranting the appointment of an independent fiduciary. While commonly associated with prohibited transaction exemptions, the use of an independent fiduciary provides multiple benefits, including a significant risk-shifting opportunity from the plan fiduciary to the independent fiduciary. (For an in-depth discussion, see “A Current Look At Independent Fiduciaries Under ERISA”, by Stephen Wilkes, Fall 2025, Journal of Pension Planning & Compliance”. Independent fiduciaries play a crucial role in satisfying the conditions of certain statutory, class, and individual prohibited transaction exemptions. Many class and individual exemptions require the services of independent fiduciaries as a condition of compliance, and several statutory exemptions under ERISA specifically require that the plan’s decisionmaker be independent, such as ERISA Section 408(b)(8) with respect to common or collective trust funds. Additionally, other statutory exemptions expressly require the appointment of an independent fiduciary, including transactions executed through an electronic communication network. While “independent fiduciary” is not defined in ERISA, the prohibited transaction exemption procedures, which were most recently updated by the Department of Labor (“DOL”) in 2024, provide a definition and set out the requirements for a “qualified independent fiduciary.” Under the regulations, the independent fiduciary must have appropriate training and experience to act on behalf of the plan regarding the exemption transaction. As such, the independent fiduciary must possess a deep knowledge of its duties and responsibilities under ERISA, as well as the relevant experience and knowledge regarding the transaction. The independent fiduciary must also be free of relationships that could improperly affect its judgment. When determining whether a fiduciary is independent, the DOL considers all relevant facts and circumstances, including revenues received from the transaction (including fees) relative to the fiduciary’s revenues from all sources, making it clear that the fiduciary must not have a financial relationship with the transaction or parties that would impair its independence. In addition to its value in the context of prohibited transaction exemption matters, the use of an independent fiduciary can also mitigate potential conflict of interest situations. Examples of such situations where the services of an independent fiduciary may be required include certain employee stock ownership plan (“ESOP”) transactions, the selection and management of pharmacy benefit manager (“PBM”) programs, class action litigation settlements, annuity purchases, and alternative investments, such as determinations as to whether a plan should invest in alternative assets that may produce a higher return (where the alternative might be to increase contributions). The Wagner Law Group’s Independent Fiduciary Services practice has extensive independent fiduciary and ERISA experience, ranging from supporting individual and class prohibited transaction exemption applications, to serving as an independent fiduciary for health plans to address complex PBM matters. The decision to retain a competent independent fiduciary focused solely on acting in the interest of plan participants and beneficiaries can help reduce risk, mitigate or prevent conflicts of interest, and add a level of independent review and protection for plan participants and beneficiaries. [author] [author_image timthumb='on']/wp-content/uploads/sites/1101401/2025/07/castro_camille-1.jpg[/author_image] [author_info]With over a decade of experience in pension and employee benefits law, Camille brings a wealth of experience in matters related to ERISA and pension plans. Her career at PBGC has provided Camille with a unique understanding of federal pension insurance programs and the intricacies of government regulations that impact plan sponsors, fiduciaries, and participants.[/author_info] [/author] [author] [author_image timthumb='on']https://www.wagnerlawgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/1101401/2023/04/StephenWilkes.jpg[/author_image] [author_info]Stephen Wilkes heads the firm's Investment Management Law practice. He also is a Practice Group leader for the firm's ERISA Fiduciary Compliance and Independent Fiduciary practices. Steve advises a national client base of mutual funds, CIFs, private funds, registered investment advisers, insurance companies, broker dealers, wealth management firms, banks, trust companies, third-party platform providers, Taft Hartley Funds and plan sponsors on ERISA, tax, and related securities law issues. [/author_info] [/author]

Multiemployer Plans and Employers Continue to Test the Limits of ERISA’s Withdrawal Liability Provisions

By Israel Goldowitz We have often written on withdrawal liability issues under ERISA involving collectively bargained multiemployer pension plans. Multiemployer plan participants can incur benefit reductions, and ongoing employers can incur increased funding costs when other employers withdraw and do not pay their withdrawal liability. The price tag for withdrawal liability, however, can be unexpectedly high. Given the stakes, it is not surprising that-45 years after Congress enacted withdrawal liability-plans and withdrawn employers continue to test the limits of ERISA’s withdrawal liability provisions. Two recent examples are Perfection Bakeries v. Retail Wholesale and Department Store Pension Fund in the Eleventh Circuit and SuperValu v. United Food and Commercial Workers Pension Fund in the Seventh Circuit. Perfection dealt with the order of calculations when there has been a partial withdrawal. SuperValu dealt with calculation of the annual payment when operations were previously sold under a safe harbor provision. An employer withdraws from a multiemployer plan when it permanently ceases covered operations or permanently ceases to have an obligation to contribute to the plan. Typically, this would occur if the employer does not renew its obligation after its collective bargaining agreement expires, it shuts down, or it sells its assets. For instance, a company may go nonunion or substitute a 401(k) plan for the multiemployer plan, a small business owner may retire and close the business, or a large or mid-sized business may be acquired by a strategic or financial buyer. Employers can also have liability for a partial withdrawal, for a sustained reduction in covered hours (70 percent for three years), or for taking an operation nonunion (at its original location or elsewhere). Withdrawal liability represents the employer’s share of the plan’s underfunding. That share is defined as the value of vested benefits minus the value of plan assets the (unfunded vested benefits or UVB) times a fraction that represents the employer’s historical share of required contributions to the plan. The plan may use a single snapshot of UVB and the employer’s five-year contribution ratio as of the end of the plan year before withdrawal, or it may use a method that compares two or more snapshots and five-year fractions and reduces year-to-year volatility. The resulting amount is payable in annual installments equal to the product of the employer’s highest contribution rate and its high-three average annual covered hours within the previous 10 years. But payments are limited to 20 years’ worth unless the plan terminates by a mass withdrawal. For example, if the present value of vested benefits is $2 billion, the value of assets is $1.5 billion, and the employer has been a five-percent contributor, the UVB would be $500 million, and the employer’s share would be $25 million. If its installment payments are only $1 million per year, they would not pay off the $25 million in 20 years, and the assessment would be limited to $20 million in total payments. Their present value would be considerably less. The calculations are highly sensitive to interest rates. If the plan values benefits using the same rate as it uses to calculate minimum funding contributions, say 7%, the present value would be less than if the plan values benefits using a 6% rate. (Present value and interest rate are inversely related.) Depending on the age of the plan’s participants, a change from 7% to 6% could increase the value of vested benefits by ten percent or more. If assets are $1.5 billion, employers could have a share of $700 million ($2.2 billion minus $1.5 billion), instead of $500 million, to give an example. The majority of plans use a blend of PBGC rates—derived from insurance company annuity prices and the funding rate, which can result in an effective interest rate less than 6%, at least in a “normal” interest rate environment, and therefore a more dramatic increase in UVB. Three courts of appeal have held that a plan must use its funding rate, however, as the actuary must use his “best estimate” for each purpose, and he can’t have two different ”best” estimates. Some experts disagree, as the withdrawn employer will not share in future gains or losses, so taking “closeout” rates into account is appropriate. More recently, in M&K Employee Solutions v Trustee of the IAM National Pension Fund, the Supreme Court agreed to resolve a split in circuits over when the interest rate must be selected, by the end of the plan year before withdrawal or by a reasonable time in the year of withdrawal. ERISA provides that the valuation must be “as of” the end of the year, which means a permissible after-the-fact valuation in actuarial practice and according to the D.C Circuit, but which may lead to abuse according to the Second Circuit. Employers and funds have litigated other issues recently. For instance,

If the employer incurs a partial withdrawal followed by a complete withdrawal, how is the first assessment credited against the second to prevent overcharging? In Perfection, the Eleventh Circuit held that a portion of the partial withdrawal liability assessment is deducted from the employer’s share of UVB in the second assessment rather than at a later step, which resulted in a $6 million rather than a $4 million assessment.
If an employer sells some but not all operations and avoids liability under an exception that provides for the buyer to assume the seller’s share of UVB for the last five years’ contributions, how does that affect the installment payment amount if the employer later withdraws? In SuperValu. the Seventh Circuit held that the employer’s annual payment should be based on hours worked at a sold operation in the sixth through tenth years before withdrawal, though they did not count toward its share of UVB. The court did not say how much this issue was worth, but the assessment was for $23 million.

As this summary illustrates, there are several issues in withdrawal liability cases that can have a dramatic financial impact. A withdrawal liability estimate is important to business planning and in mergers and acquisitions, and an estimate can be developed in consultation with actuarial and legal experts or obtained from the fund. Through the fund’s estimate will lag by a year or more, experts can help in evaluating the uncertainty and identifying ways to mitigate it. If a withdrawal has occurred, it is important to understand the settlement value of the assessment, given legal risk and costs and present value considerations. And if there is enough at stake, it may be worth arbitrating the issues and then seeking review by a federal district court. The Wagner Law Group advises employers, buyers and sellers of companies, and pension funds on withdrawal liability issues. We would be happy to answer any questions you have about these issues. [author] [author_image timthumb='on']https://www.wagnerlawgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/1101401/2021/07/Israel-Goldowitz-1.jpg[/author_image] [author_info]Israel Goldowitz has over 40 years of experience. He was the Chief Counsel for the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC). He led the legal teams that helped save the pensions of such companies as Chrysler and American Airlines. [/author_info] [/author]

14 Attorneys from The Wagner Law Group to be Recognized in 2026 Edition of The Best Lawyers in America©

2025-08-27T20:06:54Z

14 Attorneys from The Wagner Law Group to be Recognized in 2026 Edition of The Best Lawyers in America^© - The Wagner Law Group Press Release, August 21, 2025 (PDF)

The Wagner Law Group’s Washington, D.C. Office Benefits Bulletin Newsletter

2025-08-14T19:08:59Z

Our periodic Washington D.C. newsletter highlights the expertise of our Wagner Law Group attorneys analyzing legislative, regulatory and other cutting-edge benefits issues arising from activity in Washington or other important jurisdictions. Our office members are well suited for this given many of them have decades of experience working in key governmental agencies such as the Department of Labor and Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. This edition of our Benefits Bulletin has articles analyzing:

employee benefits provisions in the One Big Beautiful Bill
regulatory trends for our investment advisor/broker dealer clients; and
financial challenges facing public pension plans

______________________________ Employee Benefits Provisions in One Big Beautiful Bill By Eric Keller Last month, President Trump signed the One Big Beautiful Bill (“OBBB”) into law. This article briefly summarizes OBBB’s key employee benefits provisions, which are effective for taxable years beginning in 2026 unless otherwise noted. If you have any questions or would like more information regarding any of these provisions, please contact Eric Keller or the WLG attorney with whom you regularly work. Executive Compensation Section 4960 of the Internal Revenue Code (“Code”), which subjects certain tax-exempt organizations to excise taxes for remuneration in excess of $1 million (or certain excess parachute payments), is expanded to apply to all employees or former employees of the organization, rather than certain employees. Section 162(m), which disallows the tax deduction for remuneration in excess of $1 million paid to certain employees of publicly traded companies, is amended to apply entity aggregation rules for purposes of applying the limitation and allocating the deduction. Fringe Benefits The exclusion from gross income available under Code Section 129 for Dependent Care Assistance Program (DCAP) flexible spending accounts is increased to $7,500 (or $3,750 for married individuals filing separately) from $5,000. The exclusion from gross income for educational assistance programs under Code Section 127 (currently $5,250) is indexed, and the previously temporary provision that treats certain student loan repayments as qualifying education expenses is made permanent. The exclusion from gross income for qualified bicycle commuting expenses is eliminated. The previously temporary suspension of the employer deduction for moving expenses and the exclusion for employer-provided qualifying moving expense reimbursements is made permanent. High Deductible Health Plans (HDHPs) and Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) The previously temporary COVID-era safe harbor allowing HDHP coverage of telehealth services before patients have satisfied the deductible is made permanent. Direct primary care service arrangements will not be disqualifying coverage if the primary services are provided for a fixed fee that does not exceed $150 per month for individual or $300 for more than one person (adjusted for inflation). Bronze and catastrophic plans offered in the individual market on an Affordable Care Act exchange may qualify as an HDHP. Trump Accounts OBBB creates new tax-preferred accounts for children referred to as a “Trump Account”. The account may be established for children under age 18 with contributions of up to $5,000 per year (indexed for inflation). Distributions are generally prohibited until the child attains age 18. Employers may contribute up to $2,500 annually (indexed for inflation) to Trump Accounts of an employee or any employee dependent if the employer has adopted a separate written plan that satisfies specific requirements. Trump Accounts are subject to numerous restrictions and are generally treated as traditional IRAs under Code Section 408. There is a pilot program whereby the US Treasury will pay a one-time credit of $1,000 to the Trump Accounts of US citizen children born after 2024 and before 2029. ______________________________ Regulatory Trends for Our Investment Advisor/Broker Dealer Clients By Stephen Wilkes and Seth Gaudreau We have seen a shift towards alignment amongst the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”), and the White House. For example, last month, the SEC withdrew a series of proposed regulatory actions published between March 2022 and November 2023. The decision reflects the SEC's current regulatory priorities, and the Commission clarified that if it chooses to revisit these areas in the future, new proposed rules will be issued. The key driver at the SEC for this shift comes largely from the White House Executive Orders which emphasize less regulatory presence. For example, we have seen presidential orders that are titled “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation” and “Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies”. The new Executive Orders mandate that each federal agency repeal 10 regulations for every new regulation that it adopts. And the incremental cost of any one agency’s new regulations for fiscal year 2025 must be less than zero, “significantly” less than zero to be more accurate. Further, the federal agency must demonstrate that each regulatory action complies with a rigorous cost-benefit analysis as in effect under all guidance, including such guidance as promulgated by the Office of Management and Budget. The bottom line is that the SEC is clearly sensitive to current market and political forces and is making a significant pivot under SEC Chair Paul Atkins. Key Areas of Withdrawn Proposals: The withdrawn proposals covered fourteen different rule proposals, including:

Substantial Implementation, Duplication, and Resubmission of Shareholder Proposals Under Exchange Act Rule 14a-8 (87 FR 45052 (July 27, 2022)): Amendments to the rules governing the exclusion of shareholder proposals under Rule 14a-8 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act).
Conflicts of Interest Associated with the Use of Predictive Data Analytics by Broker-Dealers and Investment Advisers (87 FR 13524 (Mar. 9, 2022)): Rules addressing the use of predictive data analytics by broker-dealers and investment advisers.
Safeguarding Advisory Client Assets (87 FR 36654 (June 17, 2022): Proposals to enhance the safeguarding of advisory client assets including amendments to certain provisions of the current custody rule.
Cybersecurity Risk Management for Investment Advisers, Registered Investment Companies, and Business Development Companies (87 FR 13524 (Mar. 9, 2022): Rules requiring investment advisers, investment companies, and other market participants to adopt cybersecurity policies and procedures.
Enhanced Disclosures on Environmental, Social, and Governance (“ESG”) Investment Practices (87 FR 36654 (June 17, 2022)): Enhanced disclosure requirements for ESG investment practices by investment advisers and investment companies.
Outsourcing by Investment Advisers (87 FR 68816 (Nov. 16, 2022)): Rules prohibiting advisers from outsourcing certain services without meeting specific requirements.
Position Reporting of Large Security-Based Swap Positions (87 FR 6652 (Feb. 4, 2022), 88 FR 42546 (June 30, 2023), 88 FR 41338 (June 26, 2023)): Proposals for reporting large security-based swap positions.
Volume-Based Exchange Transaction Pricing for NMS Stocks (88 FR 76282 (Nov. 6, 2023)): Rules prohibiting volume-based transaction pricing for National Market S stocks.
Regulation Best Execution (88 FR 5440 (Jan. 27, 2023)): Proposals to enhance broker-dealers’ duty of best execution.
Order Competition Rules (88 FR 128 (Jan. 3, 2023)): Amendments to require certain orders to be exposed to competition in qualified auctions.
Regulation Systems Compliance and Integrity (SCI) (88 FR 23146 (Apr. 14, 2023)): Expansion of the definition of “SCI entity” and other amendments to Regulation Systems Compliance and Integrity.
Cybersecurity For Broker-Dealers, Clearing Agencies, Major Security-Based Swap Participants, The Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board, National Securities Associations, National Securities Exchanges, Security-Based Swap Data Repositories, Security-Based Swap Dealers, And Transfer Agents (88 FR 20212 (Apr. 5, 2023)): Rules requiring various market participants to address cybersecurity risks and report incidents.
Amendments Regarding the Definition of “Exchange” and Alternative Trading Systems (ATSs) That Trade U.S. Treasury and Agency Securities, National Market System (NMS) Stocks, and Other Securities (87 FR 15496 (Mar. 18, 2022)): Amendments to the definition of “exchange” and regulations for alternative trading systems.
Amendments to the National Market System Plan Governing the Consolidated Audit Trail To Enhance Data Security (85 FR 65990 (Oct. 16, 2020)): Proposed amendments to enhance data security in the Consolidated Audit Trail.

ERISA considerations for Plan Advisers Although the SEC’s recent actions do not require immediate action, the withdrawn proposals included rules that might have influenced fiduciary decision-making, such as those related to cybersecurity risks, outsourcing and ESG considerations, climate, cryptocurrency, and artificial intelligence. Fiduciaries and service providers must pay close attention to the SEC’s current regulatory agenda for future updates and rule proposals (in addition of course to DOL regulatory activity) and remain vigilant in upholding their statutory duties to protect the interests of plan participants and beneficiaries. ______________________________ Public Pensions Continue to Face Financial Challenges By Israel Goldowitz Pension plans of state and local governments cover more than 25 million members. They have assets of more than $5 trillion and pay nearly $400 billion in benefits every year. These plans therefore have a major effect on capital markets and retiree spending as well as government finance and budgeting. With changes in the way governments deliver services, they also increasingly cover mixed public-private entities. Though new models have emerged, governmental plans are still mainly defined benefit plans. A defined benefit plan promises a benefit for life based on service and compensation, such as $30,000 per year with thirty years of service and final pay of $100,000 (or one percent of final pay per year or service). After the Great Recession, many government plans experienced significant financial strain. That led to less generous benefit promises for new hires and attempts to reduce benefits for current employees. An example is Chicago’s unsuccessful attempt to cut cost of living adjustments, intended to make the plan more sustainable for a greater “net benefit.” The Illinois Supreme Court held that taxpayers stood behind the pensions under the state Constitution, making any quid pro quo illusory. Other courts have disagreed, treating a more secure promise as a reasonable exchange for a less generous benefit. The outcome may depend on the scope of the state’s constitutional or statutory guarantees to public employees. The issue can be brought to a head in a Chapter 9 bankruptcy if a city or other political subdivision is authorized to file bankruptcy under state law. (States themselves cannot file bankruptcy, and only 27 states permit political subdivisions to do so). Examples include the City of Detroit, which reduced pension payments and eliminated cost of living adjustments as part of a grand bargain with lenders and other stakeholders, and the City of Stockton, which tried to withdraw from CalPERS and eventually cut pay and retiree medical benefits as an alternative. Well-funded plans can also present issues, as lawmakers look to surplus assets to cover budget gaps. Retirees, on the other hand, see a surplus as a source of security and possible gainsharing in the form of increased benefits or one-time payments. We were recently involved in such a case, where the legislative session expired with no clear resolution. Rules for funding public pension vary. In some states, annual contributions must be actuarially based. Required contributions have been rising, and in recent years they have generally been paid in full. But with increasing retiree to active member ratios and other strains, funded percentages have remained below 80 percent for the last decade and a half. ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code’s requirements generally do not apply to public plans. But many of the same structural changes are possible. For instance, plans can be closed to new hires and a defined contribution plan substituted; employee contributions can be imposed or increased; plans can be merged or can spin off assets and liabilities; and multiple-employer plans can charge an exit fee based on conservative actuarial assumptions. Even strong funding rules can be subject to interpretation or to override by balanced budget laws or limits on taxation. And even small changes (such as the interest rate) can have a large impact on contributions and the funded ratio. __________________________________________ The Wagner Law Group is well versed in these issues. We have advised clients, published articles, and spoken at pension and municipal finance conferences on these issues. Our Washington office is expert in funding rules and actuarial issues concerning defined benefit plans. Please contact us if we may be assistance in these areas.

Supreme Court to Hear Pension Withdrawal Liability Case That May Impact Most of the Nation’s Multiemployer Plans

2025-07-10T14:49:01Z

On June 30, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in a withdrawal liability case, M&K Employee Solutions, LLC v. Trustees of the IAM National Pension Fund, that could affect most of the nation’s 1,400 multiemployer plan. Like most multiemployer plans, the IAM Fund sets its interest and mortality assumptions for withdrawal liability “as of” the last day of a plan year, based on an actuary’s report. But the assumptions are usually not set until weeks or months after that date. For instance, liability for withdrawals in 2025 is based on the plan’s unfunded vested benefits (UVB) as of December 31, 2024, but the UVB may not be set until March 2025 or later. Changes in the interest rate assumption can have a large effect, swinging liabilities between five and fifteen percent per 100 basis points (e.g., from 7.5 to 6.5 percent). In M&K, withdrawn employers complained that setting assumptions after the valuation date allowed the trustees to “retroactively” increase their withdrawal liability. The arbitrators agreed with the employers, but the district court reversed, and the employers appealed to the D.C. Circuit. The D.C. Circuit affirmed, noting that performance of a valuation “as of” -- but after – the valuation date allows the actuary to take plan experience into account as ERISA requires. The Second Circuit had reached a contrary conclusion, in National Retirement Fund v. Metz Culinary Management, treating the valuation as a plan rule that ERISA says cannot be implemented retroactively. The Second Circuit suggested that a different ruling would open the door to “manipulation and bias.” Under the Second Circuit’s view, actuarial assumptions would roll over from one year to the next unless they are changed on or before the end of the year. With only two circuits weighing in, the issue might not have seemed ripe for Supreme Court review. But the Court asked the Solicitor General for his views. With the PBGC’s support, the SG advised that that case warranted immediate review because even relatively small changes in assumptions can affect withdrawal liability bills by millions of dollars and “the dueling rules” can “open any determination of withdrawal liability to challenge.” The case will be on the calendar for the Court’s October Term, with briefs due over the summer. Given its importance to the multiemployer community, the case will probably attract “friend of court” briefs on both sides of the issue. We have written about this and related issues, and our lawyers have significant experience with actuarial issues under ERISA. If you want to know more, please contact Israel Goldowitz or the Wagner lawyer you usually work with. [author] [author_image timthumb='on']https://www.wagnerlawgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/1101401/2021/07/Israel-Goldowitz-1.jpg[/author_image] [author_info]Israel Goldowitz has over 40 years of experience. He was the Chief Counsel for the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC). He led the legal teams that helped save the pensions of such companies as Chrysler and American Airlines. [/author_info] [/author]

The Wagner Law Group’s Washington, D.C. Office Benefits Bulletin Newsletter

2025-10-06T19:16:42Z

Welcome to the inaugural edition of our Washington D.C. newsletter, which will address legislative and regulatory issues through the prism of The Wagner Law Group’s Washington D.C. expertise. Our Washington D.C. office members have unique experience gained from working in government agencies. The Wagner Law Group is proud of its firm-wide relationship, based on mutual respect, with regulatory agencies that provides insight and enables us to manage the need for direct representation and dialogue when appropriate. This Newsletter summarizes and provides links to the following timely and important articles:

Federal District Court Declares Current Regulatory Framework for Assessing Excise Taxes Under the Affordable Care Act’s Employer Mandate is Void and Unenforceable – by Eric Keller and Roberta Casper Watson

The practical effect of the court’s potentially earthshaking declaration would seem to be that, unless such declaration is overturned on appeal, employers have no liability to pay excise taxes under Section 4980H of the Internal Revenue Code and may file a refund claim for such taxes previously paid. For more information, click here.

Popular Benefits-Related Tax Provisions May be Targeted to Raise Revenue for Federal Tax Cuts – by Eric Keller

Some of the largest tax expenditures found in the Internal Revenue Code provide tax-favored treatment for a variety of popular employee benefit programs, such as the exclusion from income for employer-provided health insurance as well as tax-favored retirement plans and accounts and equity-based compensation arrangements. One or more of these or other popular benefits-related tax provisions may be targeted to help pay for the expected extension of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 as well as the possible implementation of other tax cuts that have been championed by President Trump, such as excluding tips and Social Security payments from income taxes. For more information, click here.

Highlights of 2024 PBGC Meeting With ABA’s Joint Committee on Employee Benefits – by Harold Ashner and Israel Goldowitz

On April 30, 2025, the American Bar Association (“ABA”) posted a summary of the May 1, 2024, meeting between representatives of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (“PBGC”) and representatives of the ABA’s Joint Committee on Employee Benefits (“JCEB”). For a summary of the key highlights of meeting, click here.

Retaining an Independent Fiduciary to Address Prohibited Transactions or Enable Plan Fiduciaries to Appropriately Allocate Risk – by Stephen Wilkes and Seth Gaudreau

The retention of an independent fiduciary plays a critical role not only to resolve a conflict in a prohibited transaction sense, but to provide an appropriate method of effective risk allocation to Plan fiduciaries who must otherwise discharge investment and other transactional duties (often quite complex in nature) in a prudent fashion, e.g., PBM service arrangements. For more information, click here.

Executive Compensation in Volatile Times: Advice for Privately-held Companies and Their Executives – by Mark Poerio

From tariffs to cash flows, small business owners may feel that mid-2025 warrants attention to how key employees are compensated and retained. For ideas on how to attract and retain key executives in volatile times, for more information, please click here.

ERISA and Bankruptcy: Conflict or Harmony? – by Israel Goldowitz

With the economy and the securities markets roiled by trade wars, many businesses are no doubt considering the possibility of a recession. We might also expect a major increase in bankruptcy filings. That may require consideration of how ERISA and the Bankruptcy Code interact. Judge Craig Goldblatt of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court has been conducting a master class in the Yellow Corporation Chapter 11 case. For a summary of the key rulings he has made to date, please click here. WLG’s Washington Office Welcomes Three Preeminent Attorneys The Wagner Law Group has expanded its Washington DC office with the arrival of three preeminent employee benefits attorneys: Joni Andrioff and Eric Keller who joined in February and Camille Castro who joined in April. Ms. Andrioff is recognized as a leader in the area of employee benefits and executive compensation law with over 35 years of working in partnership with employers, service providers, and ERISA fiduciaries. Mr. Keller has over 25 years of experiencing counseling employers, fiduciaries and service providers on the full spectrum of executive compensation and employee benefits law. Ms. Castro brings over a decade of experience related to ERISA and pension plans, most recently as the PBGC’s Office of the Advocate. Ms. Andrioff and Mr. Keller are fellows of the prestigious American College of Employee Benefits Council, and Ms. Andrioff is the immediate past president of the ACEBC. Our Washington Office has seven attorneys who are ACEBC fellows, two of whom are former ACEBC presidents. The Wagner Law Group has 13 attorneys who are ACEBC fellows, more than any other law firm.

ERISA and Bankruptcy: Conflict or Harmony?

2025-04-30T19:56:01Z

By Israel Goldowitz With the economy and the securities markets roiled by trade wars, many businesses are no doubt considering the possibility of a recession. We might also expect a major increase in bankruptcy filings. That may require consideration of how ERISA and the Bankruptcy Code interact. Judge Craig Goldblatt of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court has been conducting a master class in the Yellow Corporation Chapter 11 case. His decisions illustrate how ERISA and bankruptcy law may conflict but more often can be harmonized. Yellow, once a leading less-than-truckload carrier, filed for bankruptcy in July 2023 and sold substantially all its assets for nearly $3 billion. Sixteen multiemployer pension plans filed more than $6 billion in claims for withdrawal liability. The withdrawal liability claims are the “fulcrum” claims, as investors could be in the money if those claims are reduced. In any event, their resolution is critical to finalizing a consensual plan of liquidation. The Court’s Rulings Proper Forum In March 2024, Judge Goldblatt held that he, and not a statutory arbitrator, would decide the claims dispute. Arbitration agreements are generally enforceable. As Judge Goldblatt explained, in bankruptcy all interested parties may participate, but there would no loss of efficiency, and there would be no prejudice, as legal conclusions of a withdrawal liability arbitrator or a bankruptcy judge are fully reviewable by a U.S. district court. This result was to be expected, in my view, given the exigencies of bankruptcy practice. There are often external deadlines, and asset values often decline as time passes. The judge therefore has a vital role in moving the case to closure. In addition, Congress has given bankruptcy courts broad authority to consider everything from domestic relations law to oil and gas law, as the Bankruptcy Code’s legislative history indicates. The Supreme Court has held that when Congress sets up a special tribunal (such as the NLRB), that tribunal should determine the validity and amount of claims against the debtor. But such concerns are often mooted by settlements, either standalone or as part of a confirmed plan. Employer’s Share of Unfunded Vested Benefits Withdrawal liability represents the withdrawn employer’s share of the plan’s unfunded vested benefits. For instance, if the value of vested benefits is $5 billion and the value of plan assets is $4 billion, and the employer was a five-percent contributor, the employer’s share of unfunded vested benefits would be $50 million ($5 billion - $4 billion x .05). Inclusion of SFA Award as a Plan Asset In November 2024, Judge Goldblatt addressed whether an award of special financial assistance (SFA) under the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA) is treated as a plan asset for this purpose. ARPA established a taxpayer rescue of deeply troubled multiemployer plans, through SFA grants administered by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC). Congress authorized PBGC to set conditions on SFA payments, including conditions relating to withdrawal liability. In a July 2022 final rule setting conditions on SFA awards, PBGC required plans to treat the award as an asset only on a phased-in basis over the expected life of the award. Otherwise, employers could take unfair advantage of the system, withdrawing soon after the award was made. In its June 2024 decision in Loper Bright, the Supreme Court overruled the Chevron doctrine, under which courts would defer to an agency’s “permissible” statutory construction where Congress has not directly spoken. The Court confirmed, however, that Congress may “expressly delegate” authority to an agency to “fill up the details.” After considering Loper Bright, Judge Goldblatt upheld this aspect of the rule as within PBGC’s delegated authority and not arbitrary and capricious. Discount Rate for Vested Benefits In February 2025, Judge Goldblatt addressed the interest factors used to bring the expected payments of vested benefits to present value. As many of our readers know, in valuing benefits, a multiemployer plan actuary’s mortality and interest assumptions must be “reasonable” “in the aggregate” and represent her “best estimate of anticipated experience” under the plan. Until recently, courts had accepted a range of interest rates, including a blend of the plan’s funding rate -- often six to seven percent -- and the “PBGC rate” -- which was as low as two percent in recent years. (PBGC interest assumptions are designed to replicate the price of a group annuity using a specified mortality table.) Use of a blended rate instead of the funding rate can increase the plan’s liabilities significantly, as present value is inversely related to the discount rate and a change of one hundred basis points can swing liabilities by ten percent or more. Starting in 2021, three courts of appeals held that if the funding rate represents the actuary’s “best estimate” of anticipated experience for that purpose, the withdrawal liability rate should at least be similar. This, despite policy arguments that an employer withdrawal is like a termination and that benefits should be valued more conservatively. In response, in October 2022, PBGC issued a proposed rule that would validate the use of any interest assumption between the PBGC rate and the funding rate, including a blended rate. The proposed rule has been controversial, and it is not clear that PBGC would be willing to eliminate ten other rules to finalize this rule, under the Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation executive order. For plans receiving SFA, under the July 2022 final rule, the actuary must use the PBGC rate. The majority of the plans in Yellow had been awarded SFA. Five had not, however, and Judge Goldblatt held that they could not use a blended rate to determine the value of vested benefits. He explained that a plan’s “anticipated experience” refers to expected earnings on plan investments and that a blended rate with little grounding in the plan’s actual investments is impermissible. Whether one agrees or disagrees with this conclusion, the underlying logic seems mainstream. Bankruptcy courts are to apply the non-bankruptcy law under the Supreme Court’s decisions in Raleigh v. Illinois Department of Revenue (2000) and Butner v. United States (1979) unless the Bankruptcy Code provides otherwise. And the only courts of appeals to address the issue have ruled against a withdrawal liability discount rate that markedly departs from the funding rate. (We have written on these issues for bankruptcy and insolvency journals, e.g., Employee Benefits in Bankruptcy: Update on Key Issues, 2023 AIRA Journal.). Employer’s Effective Withdrawal Liability Though withdrawal liability is stated as a lump sum, it is payable in installments that approximate the withdrawn employer’s contributions, using the valuation interest rate as the amortization rate. If the amortization schedule exceeds 20 years, all payments beyond that point are forgiven, under the ”20-year cap.” In his November 2024 opinion, Judge Goldblatt held that the cap applies even in the event of default, which permits a plan to accelerate the installment payments. Judge Goldblatt reasoned that, under ERISA, the cap is part of the definition of “withdrawal liability.” On April 7, 2025, Judge Goldblatt issued a 70-page Memorandum Opinion Setting Forth Preliminary Observations, to guide the parties’ settlement discussions. There, he explained that, under ERISA and plan rules, a plan may declare a default and accelerate payments when the employer misses a payment and fails to cure or when the plan deems itself insecure due to the employer’s financial condition. Judge Goldblatt noted the historical prohibition against ipso facto clauses, those that treat bankruptcy as a default. In the context of claims allowance, he noted, whether that prohibition applies is beside the point, as all installment payments are accelerated and must be brought to present value as of the petition date. That also appears true, he added, under an ERISA relief rule that allocates recovery among multiemployer plans based on the present value of their withdrawal liability claims. The only question, then, is what discount rate to use. The Bankruptcy Code’s legislative history indicates that, for contract claims, the discount rate is the contract rate of interest. By analogy, Judge Goldblatt reasoned, for statutory claims the discount rate would be the statutory rate, here the amortization rate under ERISA. He buttressed that conclusion by pointing to bankruptcy courts’ traditional power to follow the economic substance rather than the form, in this case that time value represents unmatured interest that is not allowed as part of a bankruptcy claim. As noted, Judge Goldblatt’s opinion should provide the parties with guidance in their settlement discussions. More broadly, Judge Goldblatt’s opinions illustrate that ERISA and bankruptcy law can often be harmonized, though in the end bankruptcy law governs the bankruptcy claims process. ***** WLG’s Washington, D.C. Office is often involved in the employee benefits aspects of bankruptcy and insolvency cases. We represent employers on PBGC and multiemployer plan issues and employers and executives on deferred compensation issues, among other things. Our Washington, D.C. lawyers have been involved in some of the largest bankruptcies, including American Airlines, Delphi, Dewey LeBoeuf, and Sears. We are available to assist debtors, creditors’ committees, and other interested parties as Employee Benefits counsel in bankruptcy and insolvency cases. If you have questions about such issues, please contact Israel Goldowitz, Stephen Wilkes, or the WLG attorney with whom you work. [author] [author_image timthumb='on']https://www.wagnerlawgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/1101401/2021/07/Israel-Goldowitz-1.jpg[/author_image] [author_info]Israel Goldowitz has over 40 years of experience. He was the Chief Counsel for the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC). He led the legal teams that helped save the pensions of such companies as Chrysler and American Airlines. [/author_info] [/author]

Highlights of 2024 PBGC Meeting With ABA’s Joint Committee on Employee Benefits

2025-04-30T18:16:23Z

by Harold Ashner and Israel Goldowitz On April 30, 2025, the American Bar Association (“ABA”) posted a summary of the May 1, 2024, meeting between representatives of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (“PBGC”) and representatives of the ABA’s Joint Committee on Employee Benefits (“JCEB”). Two Wagner Law Group partners (Israel Goldowitz, former PBGC Chief Counsel, and Harold Ashner, former PBGC Assistant General Counsel for Legislation and Regulations), in collaboration with Katie Kohn (a partner with Thompson Hine), coordinated the meeting with PBGC for the JCEB representatives. As discussed in the summary, which is available at www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/events/employee_benefits/technicalsessions/2024/2024-pbgc-jceb-meeting.pdf, there were several key points discussed at the meeting, including the following:

Reportable Events Experience. PBGC staff reported that it received fewer reportable event notices in Fiscal Year 2023 (ending Sept. 30, 2023) than in any prior year, with a year-over-year decrease both in terms of numbers of filings and percentage of plans filing, and with the decrease across all event types. On the other hand, staff noted that the number of late filings – about one third of all filings – has remained consistent. Common issues with filings include late filings, non-filing, and failing to include the proper attachments.

Standard Termination Audit Experience. PBGC staff addressed common errors detected in standard termination audits, including errors in calculating lump sums; determining compensation; incorrectly rolling over missing participants’ benefits to an IRA instead of using the PBGC Missing Participants Program; premature distributions; pro rata payment of benefits based on plan assets; and failure to obtain spousal consent for distributions. PBGC noted that audits generally take 18 months on average, though the length of the audit depends on the size and complexity of the plan, as well as the capacity of PBGC’s audit team. PBGC continues to audit every plan with over 1,050 participants and has seen an increase in the number of large plans doing standard terminations. For plans with no more than 1,050 participants, PBGC audits a sample, as well as any plan for which PBGC is aware of a potential problem.

Missing Participants Experience. PBGC staff indicated that PBGC continues to receive Missing Participants Program filings at a steady pace. Approximately three quarters of the filings are made in connection with a standard termination, with the remaining quarter from defined contribution plans. Staff noted that some defined contribution plans have a Roth benefit feature, and PBGC expects an increase in these Roth features. PBGC continues to see filing errors, and has updated the Missing Participants Program forms, spreadsheets, and instructions. Common filing errors include not splitting out pre-tax benefits from Roth funds, and withholding taxes from the benefit transferred to PBGC. PBGC offers pre-filing consultations to reduce errors.

Special Financial Assistance. PBGC staff reported that PBGC has approved SFA payments to 72 plans in the amount of approximately $53.9 billion, and that there are currently 20 applications under review with requests totaling $14.3 billion. Staff further reported that there are currently 87 plans on the waiting list to apply for SFA. The waiting list is updated every Friday and can be viewed at www.pbgc.gov/arp-sfa. PBGC is taking more time to get to the plans on the waiting list in part because of changes to the procedures requiring more expansive death audits. PBGC has more advanced search tools than the general public, such as the Social Security Death Master File, which is why plans were missing a number of deceased participants in the plans’ own death audits. PBGC staff suggested, however, that plans on the waiting list complete a death audit before submitting an SFA application.

Premiums. PBGC staff reminded practitioners of the early premium due date in 2025 of September 15, which was put in place in 2015. The budget has called for repeal of this provision, but Congress has not yet acted. Employers should consider how the early premium due date in 2025 will impact, or make difficult, decisions regarding funding. PBGC is concerned that smaller plans without knowledgeable vendors may miss the deadline, and there is sensitivity at the agency to ignoring the earlier deadline by not assessing penalties and interest if the plan pays by the usual October 15th deadline.

There were several other issues discussed at the meeting, as detailed in the summary on the ABA’s website. If you are facing PBGC-related issues, you should feel free to contact The Wagner Law Group for assistance. [author] [author_image timthumb='on']https://www.wagnerlawgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/1101401/2023/04/HJA.jpg[/author_image] [author_info]Harold J. Ashner advises and represents clients on a wide variety of employee benefits matters, with an emphasis on PBGC issues. He served as Assistant General Counsel for Legislation and Regulations at PBGC, where he drafted or supervised virtually all regulations and policies issued by PBGC from 1988 until he left the agency in 2005.[/author_info] [/author] [author] [author_image timthumb='on']https://www.wagnerlawgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/1101401/2021/07/Israel-Goldowitz-1.jpg[/author_image] [author_info]Israel Goldowitz has over 40 years of experience. He was the Chief Counsel for the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC). He led the legal teams that helped save the pensions of such companies as Chrysler and American Airlines. [/author_info] [/author]

Trump’s PBGC Head Could Reshape Bailout for Union Pension Plans

2025-03-19T13:45:19Z

Trump’s PBGC Head Could Reshape Bailout for Union Pension Plans - Israel Goldowitz, Bloomberg Law, March 17, 2025 (PDF)

The Wagner Law Group’s Washington, D.C. Office: Experience, Savvy, And Leadership

2025-07-10T14:55:05Z

The Wagner Law Group’s Washington, D.C. Office has continued to grow, adding Michael Schloss, EBSA’s former Director of Enforcement and before that a career ERISA litigator with the Office of the Solicitor of Labor. The Washington Office now includes three former DOL lawyers and three former PBGC lawyers, as well as financial, actuarial and benefits experts, representing more than 250 years of Inside-the-Beltway experience. Harold Ashner has consistently been named a Super Lawyer and holds a Martindale-Hubbell – Peer Review Rating of AV^® Preeminent™ 5.0. The same is true of Linda Rosenzweig. Harold, Mark Poerio, Linda, and Israel (Izzy) Goldowitz are listed in Best Lawyers in America©. The Washington Office includes five Fellows in the prestigious American College of Employee Benefits Counsel, Harold Ashner, Izzy Goldowitz, Mark Poerio, Susan Rees, and Linda Rosenzweig, among WLG’s total of 10 Fellows (surpassing even the largest firms). Izzy and Susan recruited judges for the College’s 2024 Ellen A. Hennessy Moot Court and served as judges. Members of the Washington Office continued to publish on timely and important Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation issues: Harold Ashner and Izzy Goldowitz published an alert titled Highlights of the 2023 PBGC Meeting With ABA’s Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, along with minutes of the meeting. Along with Brian Donahue and John Lowell of October Three, Harold and Linda Rosenzweig published Defined Benefits Plans: Underfunded Plans in the Bloomberg Law Guide to Retirement Plan Designs. Harold published Surprise—You Just Missed a PBGC Reportable Events Deadline! in the Journal of Pension Benefits. Izzy published How Employee Benefits Rules May Fare in the Post-‘Chevron’ World (PDF) in Bloomberg Tax. Seth Gaudreau published alerts titled:

Reg S-P Amended Around Cybersecurity
Attention Investment Managers: QPAM Matters for Immediate Review
Merger and Acquisition Considerations for Employee Benefit Plans
SEC Matters to Consider in the New Year: 2024 Exam Priorities and Off-Channel Enforcement Actions
SEC Speaks to Importance of Naming Convention
SEC’s Recent Marketing Rule Risk Alert Identifies Additional Areas of Focus During Compliance Examinations
SEC Issues New Guidance For Investment Advice Obligations (all with Stephen Wilkes (WLG San Francisco))
Significant Changes Made to IRS Employee Plans Compliance Resolution System with Barry Salkin (WLG New York) and Dannae Delano (WLG St. Louis)

Izzy Goldowitz and Linda Rosenzweig updated Employee Benefits in the Unionized Workforce, in ERISA: A Comprehensive Guide (9^th edition), edited by Andrew (Drew) Oringer (WLG New York). Izzy published Employee Benefits In Bankruptcy: Update On Key Issues in the Association of Insolvency and Restructuring Advisors Journal with Dannae Delano, Withdrawal Liability Interest Rate Assumptions: The Battle Continues in the Bloomberg Tax Management Compensation Planning Journal, and an alert titled Court Upholds PBGC Denial of Special Financial Assistance to a Terminated Multiemployer Plan. Mark Greenstein published an alert titled Longstanding Internal Revenue Service Position Called into Question, with Barry Salkin and Michael Schloss. Mark Poerio published Code Section 457(f) Conundrum: How to Handle Past Year Mistakes (from Vesting) with Barry Salkin in LexisNexis Practical Guidance and an alert titled New Fire for Enforcing Forfeiture-for-Competition Provisions, with Jordan Mamorsky (WLG Chicago) and Ban on Non-Competition Agreements – What Employers Need to Know and Do Now, along with several other WLG employment and executive compensation lawyers. Michael Schloss published:

If You Cross-Trade Securities, Make Sure Not to Cross ERISA (PDF), in Bloomberg Tax
If You Buy Pension Risk Transfers, Don’t Buy a Pig in a Poke (PDF), in Bloomberg Tax
ERISA Allows Plan Fiduciaries to Pursue More Than Just Money, in Bloomberg Tax
The Future Is Now for ERISA Fiduciary Duties Around Plan Data (PDF) in Bloomberg Law
DOL Streamlines PTE Application Rule With New Requirements (PDF) with Steve Wilkes (WLG San Francisco) in Bloomberg Law

and alerts titled:

Bugielski v. AT&T Case Continues With Appellate Reversal
IRS Issues Notice Providing Relief to Taxpayers Affected by Recent Terroristic Actions Against Israel
District Court Grants Motion to Dismiss Forfeiture Complaint
Yellow: Pension Plan Unjustly Seeking ‘Free Money’ From Bankruptcy Case
The Rise of Fiduciary Health Plan Litigation with Steve Wilkes
Department of Labor’s New Investment Advice Fiduciary Rule and Related Exemption Amendments with Steve Wilkes
The Retirement Security (Nee Fiduciary) Rule Rides Again, with Drew Oringer, Barry Salkin, John Sohn (WLG New York), and Steve Wilkes

Washington Office lawyers were in high demand as speakers at bar and other professional gatherings: Izzy Goldowitz spoke on Are Insolvency Laws Contributing to the Death of the Single-Employer Defined Benefit Plans? at the International Pension and Employee Benefits Lawyers Association’s Biennial, on ERISA at 50: How We Got Here and Where We are Headed for the Worldwide Employee Benefits Network, on Withdrawal Liability at D.C.’s ERISA Roundtable, on Working with PBGC at the Conference of Consulting Actuaries annual meeting, on Defined Benefit Plans and Bankruptcy at the Enrolled Actuaries annual meeting, and on defined benefit plans for an ACEBC ERISA history project. Mark Greenstein spoke at the U.S. Inventors conference as a member of the organization’s Policy Team. Mark Poerio spoke on Key Employee Incentives: From Design to Implementation for the CPAAcademy.org, and Avoiding Nonqualified Plan Traps: Key Considerations for ERISA Counsel and Employers for Strafford, and on a webinar titled FTC Bars Noncompetes: 7 Things Employees and Executives Must Know, and repeated his presentation on Key Employee Incentives: From Design to Implementation. Susan Rees spoke on Benefit Claims and Preparing for a DOL Cybersecurity Audit at the ABA JCEB ERISA Fiduciary Institute 2023, with Drew Oringer, on Cybersecurity Issues at the Joint TE/GE Council Employee Plans Annual Meeting, and on Multiple-Employer Plans Update at the ABA Tax Section Annual Meeting. Michael Schloss spoke on a webinar titled Surviving the New DOL Game Plan for Prohibited Transaction Exemptions with Steve Wilkes; and on DOL’s Retirement Security Rule for the Financial Planning Association. Washington Office members were often quoted in the media: Izzy Goldowitz in Why Some Ex-Workers at Bed Bath & Beyond Face 401(k) Losses (New York Times) and 3 Takeaways From The PBGC’s Latest Fiscal Health Checkup (Law360), Mark Greenstein in Judge Tosses Fossil-Fuel Divestment Suit Against NYC Pensions (FUNDfire) and New Republican Discrimination Bill Adds Little to Current Law: Lawyers (FUNDfire), and Michael Schloss, in 401(k) Advice Rule Puts New Fiduciaries in Litigation Crosshairs (PDF) (Bloomberg Law), Yellow: Pension Plan Unjustly Seeking ‘Free Money’ From Bankruptcy Case (FleetOwner), Merrill Edge in Hot Seat Over Rates Paid on IRAs (PDF) (Financial Planning), and Pension Benefits at Yellow Corp. Secured by Teamsters Fund Bailout This Year (Pensions & Investments). WLG’s Inside-the-Beltway expertise is not limited to lawyers in the Washington Office. Steve Wilkes (the firm’s Chief Legal Officer) has been involved in many of the firm’s webinars and publications involving ERISA fiduciary issues and related securities law issues that impact financial institutions. He also coordinates the firm’s federal lobbying/regulatory practice and, as a registered federal lobbyist, has represented clients on retirement plan legislative issues in Congress, as has Harold Ashner on PBGC issues. Steve leads the firm’s efforts in obtaining DOL prohibited transaction exemptions and in providing independent fiduciary service to comply with PTEs. Steve, Tom Clark (the firm’s Chief Operating Officer, practicing in WLG’s Boston and St. Louis offices), and founding partner Marcia Wagner (WLG Boston) have testified as experts before the DOL ERISA Advisory Council. Marcia served on the IRS Tax Exempt and Government Entities Advisory Committee and as Chair of its Employee Benefits Subcommittee. Marcia now serves on the Board of Governors of the ACEBC and on the Advisory Council to the Policy Board of Directors of the American Benefits Council. If you have questions about any of these materials, or need assistance with a legal, policy, federal agency, or litigation issue involving employee benefits or executive compensation, please contact a member of the Washington, D.C. Office or one of the other lawyers mentioned in this alert. [author] [author_image timthumb='on']https://www.wagnerlawgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/1101401/2023/04/HJA.jpg[/author_image] [author_info]Harold J. Ashner advises and represents clients on a wide variety of employee benefits matters, with an emphasis on PBGC issues. He served as Assistant General Counsel for Legislation and Regulations at PBGC, where he drafted or supervised virtually all regulations and policies issued by PBGC from 1988 until he left the agency in 2005.[/author_info] [/author] [author] [author_image timthumb='on']https://www.wagnerlawgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/1101401/2023/04/Seth.jpg[/author_image] [author_info]Seth F. Gaudreau concentrates his practice in ERISA business litigation, and investment management law. Within the ERISA field, he conducts research on all matters relating to employment law, which covers qualified and unqualified benefit plans, welfare plans, and retirement plans.[/author_info] [/author] [author] [author_image timthumb='on']https://www.wagnerlawgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/1101401/2021/07/Israel-Goldowitz-1.jpg[/author_image] [author_info]Israel Goldowitz has over 40 years of experience. He was the Chief Counsel for the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC). He led the legal teams that helped save the pensions of such companies as Chrysler and American Airlines. [/author_info] [/author] [author] [author_image timthumb='on']https://www.wagnerlawgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/1101401/2021/11/Greenstein-Mark.jpg[/author_image] [author_info]Mark Greenstein is a seasoned ERISA attorney who comes to our firm after nearly 25 years in the Office of Policy and Research at the Department of Labor’s (DOL) Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA). During his tenure at the DOL, Mark analyzed complex legal issues arising under Title I of ERISA.[/author_info] [/author] [author] [author_image timthumb='on']https://www.wagnerlawgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/1101401/2021/07/Mark-Poerio.jpg[/author_image] [author_info]Mark Poerio has been in private practice with a focus on executive compensation, employee benefits (especially ESOPs), and retirement plan fiduciary matters, not only from a tax and labor perspective, but also from a business, governance, tax, securities, and litigation perspective. [/author_info] [/author] [author] [author_image timthumb='on']https://www.wagnerlawgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/1101401/2021/07/Susan-Elizabeth-Rees.jpg[/author_image] [author_info]Susan Rees has extensive experience with ERISA and other federal employment laws. In her capacity as a Division Chief for the Office of Regulations and Interpretations of the Employee Benefits Security Administration at the U.S. Department of Labor in Washington D.C., she provided advice to state and federal agencies, the public, and lawmakers and their staff, on ERISA interaction with state legislation involving all types of governmental plans and state retirement program alternatives.[/author_info] [/author] [author] [author_image timthumb='on']https://www.wagnerlawgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/1101401/2023/04/Linda-Rosenzweig.jpg[/author_image] [author_info]Linda E. Rosenzweig has over 40 years of experience. Linda's broad-based practice covers the entire range of employee benefits matters. Linda advises clients on compliance and plan design of tax-qualified, non-qualified and welfare plans, as well as issues arising under ERISA, the Internal Revenue Code, Section 409A, the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act (MPPAA), COBRA, and HIPAA. She also works with clients to amend their plans and submit voluntary correction applications, implement reductions in force, and deal with service providers, including negotiating contracts.[/author_info] [/author] [author] [author_image timthumb='on']https://www.wagnerlawgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/1101401/2023/06/Michael-Schloss-photo-new.jpg[/author_image] [author_info] Michael Schloss is a highly sought-after speaker on a wide range of topics relating to Title I of ERISA and DOL activities and is the recipient of multiple awards for his service at the DOL, including the prestigious Alan D. Lebowitz Award, recognizing managers and supervisors who exemplify dedication, a distinguished career of excellence and commitment to mentoring future leaders.[/author_info] [/author] [author] [author_image timthumb='on']https://www.wagnerlawgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/1101401/2023/04/StephenWilkes.jpg[/author_image] [author_info]Stephen Wilkes heads the firm's Investment Management Law practice. He also is a Practice Group leader for the firm's ERISA Fiduciary Compliance and Independent Fiduciary practices. Steve advises a national client base of mutual funds, CIFs, private funds, registered investment advisers, insurance companies, broker dealers, wealth management firms, banks, trust companies, third-party platform providers, Taft Hartley Funds and plan sponsors on ERISA, tax, and related securities law issues. [/author_info] [/author]

How Employee Benefits Rules May Fare in the Post-‘Chevron’ World

2024-08-20T19:52:21Z

How Employee Benefits Rules May Fare in the Post-‘Chevron’ World - Israel Goldowitz, Bloomberg Tax, August 15, 2024 (PDF)

2026-05-21T04:51:16Z

12 Attorneys from The Wagner Law Group to be Recognized in 2025 Edition of The Best Lawyers in America^©- The Wagner Law Group Press Release, Marcia Wagner, Thomas Clark, Jr., Andrew Oringer, Harold Ashner, David Gabor, Israel Goldowitz, Russell Gaudreau, Jr., Johanna Matloff, Mark Poerio, Linda Rosenzweig, and Roberta Casper Watson, EIN Presswire, August 15, 2024 (PDF)

PBGC Nominee to Navigate Concerns Over Agency’s Pension Bailouts

2024-08-08T13:28:10Z

PBGC Nominee to Navigate Concerns Over Agency’s Pension Bailouts - Israel Goldowitz, Bloomberg Tax, August 7, 2024 (PDF)

Are Insolvency Laws Contributing to the Death of Single Employer DB Plans?

2024-05-21T13:49:57Z

Are Insolvency Laws Contributing to the Death of Single Employer DB Plans? - Israel Goldowitz, Panelist, 19th Biennial IPEBLA Conference, Milan, Italy, May 26 - 29, 2024 - Click here for details

ERISA at 50: How We Got Here and Where Employee Benefits Law is Headed

2024-04-12T12:33:01Z

ERISA at 50: How We Got Here and Where Employee Benefits Law is Headed - Israel Goldowitz, panelist, Worldwide Employee Benefits Network live and virtual seminar, New York, NY, June 20, 2024, 3:00 - 4:30 PM (EDT) - Click here for details and registration

Court Upholds PBGC Denial of Special Financial Assistance to a Terminated Multiemployer Plan

2024-01-09T16:56:18Z

By Israel Goldowitz In March 2021, Congress enacted the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA), which authorized the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) to provide taxpayer-funded special financial assistance (SFA) to multiemployer plans to allow them to continue paying benefits at plan levels. Until then, if a plan became insolvent, PBGC would provide only traditional financial assistance, which is limited to $35.75 per month per year of service or slightly less than $13,000 per year for a 30-year career. On October 26, 2023, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York upheld PBGC’s denial of $132 million in SFA to a terminated multiemployer plan, the Bakery Drivers Local 550 Plan (Local 550 Plan or Plan). The dispute was foreshadowed by PBGC’s July 2021 interim final SFA rule, which would deny SFA to multiemployer plans that terminated before 2020. In the rule’s preamble, PBGC explained that ARPA authorizes SFA for four categories of plans, including those in critical and declining status for the 2020, 2021, or 2022 plan year. That category would exclude plans that terminated before 2020, as the zone status rules do not apply to terminated plans. In a comment on the interim final rule, the Local 550 Plan argued against that interpretation, based on PBGC’s approval of an “innovative transaction” in 2016. The Plan explained that Hostess Bakery, which had accounted for about 60% of the Plan’s active workers, withdrew in 2011 and filed for bankruptcy in 2012, with its withdrawal liability going unpaid. That left Bimbo Bakery USA (BBU) responsible for most of the Plan’s unfunded benefit obligations. In 2016, BBU, smaller employers, and the union set up a new Teamsters Bakery Drivers Plan for active participants. That was followed by the transfer of active participants' liabilities to the Teamsters Plan and a $19 million employer contribution to the Teamsters Plan, as well as a mass withdrawal from the Local 550 Plan and $7 million in withdrawal liability payments to that Plan in the following year. The Fund’s comment concluded that, as a result of the transaction, active and inactive participants and the PBGC were better off because actives’ benefits were not subject to near-term insolvency and insolvency for retirees’ benefits was forestalled by two years. PBGC rejected the comment, reiterating in the preamble to its July 2022 final rule that ARPA “provides a list of four types of plans that are eligible to apply for SFA, and PBGC cannot extend eligibility for SFA through its regulation to a plan that is not included in that list.” In August 2022, BBU and the union amended the collective bargaining agreement to provide for a bargaining unit to resume participating in the Local 550 Plan. According to the district court record, the unit consisted of 18 employees, for whom BBU would contribute $100 per week per employee, or a total of $90,000 per 50-week year. The Local 550 Plan then applied for SFA, asserting that it was eligible as a critical and declining status plan since it was no longer terminated, assuming a plan that terminated before 2020 is ineligible. Holding that a multiemployer plan cannot be restored to its pre-termination status, PBGC denied the application in January 2023. The trustees sued, and the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The court agreed with PBGC that a terminated plan that remains terminated does not have a zone status and therefore cannot qualify for SFA as a critical and declining status plan. On whether a multiemployer plan could be restored, the court applied the Chevron doctrine on deferral to agency interpretations. At Chevron “Step Zero,” the court concluded that Congress gave PBGC rulemaking authority specific to SFA and general interpretive authority over ERISA Title IV. The court then rejected PBGC’s argument that Congress had “directly spoken” to the question (Chevron Step One). The court reasoned that ERISA governs termination of single- and multiemployer plans and PBGC restoration of single-employer plans, but it does not address whether the bargaining parties can restore a terminated multiemployer plan. And that silence does not necessarily preclude such a restoration. ERISA is therefore “silent or ambiguous,” and the court proceeded to Chevron Step Two, whether PBGCs interpretation was “permissible.” The court held that it was, as PBGC could reasonably infer from ERISA’s text that only terminated single-employer plans can be restored. The court also noted that, before SFA existed, there would be no reason for the parties to seek restoration of a multiemployer plan. PBGC’s decision, though seemingly harsh, is not the first to curb perceived abuse of the multiemployer pension insurance system. For instance, in Opinion Letter 2001-2, PBGC opined that a multiemployer plan cannot become a single-employer plan when all but one employer withdraws. PBGC distinguished between the single- and multiemployer plan insurance systems, such as the higher premiums (then $19 per participant plus $9 per $1,000 of underfunding compared to $2.60 per participant); the higher guaranty limit for single-employer plans (then about $39,000 per year compared to about $6,000); and the relative ease of meeting the distress termination requirement for single-employer plans (the employer’s inability to meet minimum funding) compared to the insurable event for multiemployer plans (plan insolvency, defined as inability to pay benefits due in the approaching plan year). Thus, a multiemployer plan cannot devolve to a single-employer plan, eligible for the higher guaranty on a showing of financial distress of the remaining employer, but can qualify for traditional financial assistance if the plan itself is insolvent. In addition, PBGC asserted that it may terminate a multiemployer plan involuntarily to prevent the agency’s potential long-run loss from increasing unreasonably, which the court in the Local 550 Plan case accepted. PBGC has apparently acted on that basis in at least one case. See Is PBGC Adding “Early Warning” and “Follow-On” to its Toolbox for Multiemployer Plans? (wagnerlawgroup.com/blog) Finally, PBGC has used its restoration authority in the single-employer context. In the Renco case, PBGC sued the former parent of a failed steelmaker for evading or avoiding termination liability when it sold the company to a private equity fund. As part of a settlement, Renco accepted a restoration of the plan, providing retirees with full plan benefits rather than benefits limited by the PBGC guaranty. See PBGC to Restore RG Steel Pension Plans to Renco Group | Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. The Local 550 Plan may appeal the district court’s decision. Regardless of the outcome, the decision illustrates PBGC’s vigilance in cases of arguable abuse of the pension insurance system. It also illustrates the role of Congress, the PBGC, and the courts on novel questions concerning defined benefit pension plans. Wagner’s lawyers can help navigate these issues, given their decades of experience with PBGC and defined benefit plans and with the interplay between legislation, rulemaking, and litigation affecting those plans.

Employee Benefits In Bankruptcy: Update On Key Issues

2024-10-31T18:25:09Z

Employee Benefits In Bankruptcy: Update On Key Issues - Israel Goldowitz and Dannae Delano, AIRA Journal Vol. 36, No. 4, 2023

Highlights of 2023 PBGC Meeting With ABA’s Joint Committee on Employee Benefits

2023-09-19T15:16:17Z

By Harold Ashner and Israel Goldowitz On September 11, 2023, the American Bar Association (“ABA”) posted a summary of the May 3, 2023, meeting between representatives of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (“PBGC”) and representatives of the ABA’s Joint Committee on Employee Benefits (“JCEB”). Two Wagner Law Group attorneys -- Israel Goldowitz (former PBGC Chief Counsel) and Harold Ashner (former PBGC Assistant General Counsel for Legislation and Regulations) – coordinated the meeting for the JCEB representatives. As discussed in the summary, which is available at www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/events/employee_benefits/technicalsessions/2023-pbgc-report.pdf, there were several key points discussed at the meeting, including the following:

Reportable Events Experience. PBGC staff reported that reportable events filings during fiscal year 2022 (ending September 30, 2022) were down about 30% from the preceding fiscal year, noting that the decline was likely due to improved funding and reduced minimum funding requirements under recent legislation. Staff also noted that, despite the overall decrease in reports, reported active participant reductions increased, likely due to attrition, plan freezes, and the effects of the pandemic. In addition, staff noted that the PBGC website has a simplified guide to reportable events for small plans (pbgc.gov/prac/reporting-and-disclosure/small-plan-reportable-reference), and recommended that practitioners regularly remind their clients of the list of reportable events.
Early Warning Program. Staff advised that there had been little recent activity in this area. Staff pointed to corporations’ focus on servicing debt during the pandemic, the benign effect of rising interest rates on pension liabilities, funding relief under ARPA and other recent legislation, and a decline in LBO activity. Staff noted that there had been no change in the program, just a few years of unusual experience.
Standard Termination Audit Experience. PBGC staff addressed common errors detected in standard termination audits, including the rollover of small benefits (valued at $5,000 or less) to IRAs for non-responsive participants rather than, as required, payment to PBGC’s Missing Participants program; premature distributions (after the notice of intent to terminate is issued and before the end of the 60-day period after the filing of the Form 500 with PBGC, or with no standard termination notice or filing); pro rata distributions when plan assets are not sufficient to provide all benefit liabilities; and the absence of spousal consent to alternative forms of distributions. Staff also noted that lump sum windows generally are not typical plan practice, and that a lump sum window shortly before termination would generally be considered “in anticipation of termination” (see 29 CFR § 4044.4(b)), and thus could result in a violation of the Title IV asset allocation rules if all benefit liabilities are not ultimately satisfied.
Pension De-Risking. PBGC staff addressed annuity “buy-ins” and “buyouts,” noting that a buyout shortly before termination would be considered to be “in anticipation of termination,” as previously described. Staff also noted that small plans often purchase annuities for select participants, and then run short of assets to satisfy other benefit liabilities.
Missing Participants Experience. PBGC staff noted that, although the Missing Participants program had been expanded in 2018 to include terminating multiemployer plans, defined contribution plans, and non-PBGC covered defined benefit plans, 80% of cases involve PBGC-covered defined benefit plans (with the remainder being mainly defined contribution plans, including Roth and other non-taxable accounts). Staff also said that PBGC continues to find missing information for Roth accounts (g., the split between contributions and investment income, or the contribution dates) and inconsistencies between the total contribution amount and the information regarding the split between contributions and investment income.
Special Financial Assistance. PBGC staff reported that 78 initial or supplemental applications for SFA had been approved since the advent of the program (covering 574,000 participants and accounting for $47.4 billion in SFA), and that 38 applications, including three supplemental applications, were under review (covering 865,000 participants and, if approved, accounting for $21.4 billion in SFA). Staff also noted that it had returned about half of all applications for resubmission for reasons such as:

- overly aggressive assumptions, including those that anticipated IRS interest rate issuances; those that captured the fourth preceding month where the IRS issuance is made mid-month, see ERISA Section 4262(e)(3); those that included excessive contribution base unit (“CBU”) declines and high inflation (g., 5% per year for 30 years); and those that are inconsistent with other assumptions (such as by treating rehires as new hires with past service grants, thus double counting those liabilities);
- double counted participants (which affects PBGC premium and expense projections), due to an error in commonly used software;
- mathematical errors, such as reversal of signs (+/-);
- failure to pro rate first-year interest, see 29 CFR § 4262.12(a)(2);
- failure to follow model plan amendments; and
- use of obsolete templates.

Israel Goldowitz | The Wagner Law Group

Supreme Court Decision on Multiemployer Plan Valuation May Increase Withdrawal Liability Assessments

Washington, D.C. Office Benefits Bulletin Newsletter

The Wagner Law Group’s Washington, D.C. Office Benefits Bulletin Newsletter

The Wagner Law Group’s Washington, D.C. Office Benefits Bulletin Newsletter

Watch Out for PBGC Reportable Events!

Spotlight on the Role of the Independent Fiduciary

Multiemployer Plans and Employers Continue to Test the Limits of ERISA’s Withdrawal Liability Provisions

14 Attorneys from The Wagner Law Group to be Recognized in 2026 Edition of The Best Lawyers in America©

The Wagner Law Group’s Washington, D.C. Office Benefits Bulletin Newsletter

Supreme Court to Hear Pension Withdrawal Liability Case That May Impact Most of the Nation’s Multiemployer Plans

The Wagner Law Group’s Washington, D.C. Office Benefits Bulletin Newsletter

ERISA and Bankruptcy: Conflict or Harmony?

Highlights of 2024 PBGC Meeting With ABA’s Joint Committee on Employee Benefits

Trump’s PBGC Head Could Reshape Bailout for Union Pension Plans

The Wagner Law Group’s Washington, D.C. Office: Experience, Savvy, And Leadership

How Employee Benefits Rules May Fare in the Post-‘Chevron’ World

12 Attorneys from The Wagner Law Group to be Recognized in 2025 Edition of The Best Lawyers in America©

PBGC Nominee to Navigate Concerns Over Agency’s Pension Bailouts

Are Insolvency Laws Contributing to the Death of Single Employer DB Plans?

ERISA at 50: How We Got Here and Where Employee Benefits Law is Headed

Court Upholds PBGC Denial of Special Financial Assistance to a Terminated Multiemployer Plan

Employee Benefits In Bankruptcy: Update On Key Issues

Highlights of 2023 PBGC Meeting With ABA’s Joint Committee on Employee Benefits