"SECURE 2.0 made legislative changes in the requirements that both multiemployer plans and single-employer plans must satisfy. These changes made the existing model AFNs outdated.... FAB 2025-02, in addition to providing new model AFNs, explains how plans could comply with the AFN requirement for the 2024 plan year."  MORE >>

"Under [Notice 2024-77], a Plan is no longer required to attempt to recoup overpayment amounts or notify the participant of the tax consequences. While the guidance does note that a plan is still permitted to pursue the methods of recoupment provided under EPCRS, a plan is still prohibited from recovering overpayments [in certain circumstances]."  MORE >>

"The most important part of the opinion is the last few pages, where [Justice Sotomayor] grapples with the reality that the court has validated a rule that will allow a plaintiff to survive a motion to dismiss merely by alleging that a plan fiduciary has purchased something from an entity from whom it purchases things." [Cunningham v. Cornell Univ., No. 23-1007 (S.Ct. Apr. 17, 2025)]  MORE >>

"[A]rguably a requirement that plaintiffs both allege a fiduciary breach due to outcomes/injury AND to establish imprudent processes or bad actions as a cause of those outcomes was a nearly impossible threshold for plaintiffs to clear. Considering the large -- and increasing -- number of suits being filed ... one might well wish for better legal guardrails to thwart them. But this result seems unlikely to slow the current pace -- and might well accelerate it." [Cunningham v. Cornell Univ., No. 23-1007 (S.Ct. Apr. 17, 2025)]  MORE >>

"Examining how much each of these sources replace retirees' average preretirement earnings shows that Social Security provides a larger share of income in retirement for those who earned less, while those who earned more can expect more from the DC system. However, the expected median replacement rates for both sources combined are similar across incomes."  MORE >>

"The Court did offer some guidance to lower courts presented with barebones prohibited transaction claims. The Court proposed, for example, invoking the rarely-used provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a)(7) to require plaintiffs to file a reply to an answer to plead how an exemption does not apply (and then dismissing suits if plaintiffs cannot do so). The Court also cautioned that Rule 11 sanctions and ERISA’s fee-shifting provision can be used as deterrents where plaintiffs seek to capitalize on the lower pleading standard created by this opinion." [Cunningham v. Cornell Univ., No. 23-1007 (S.Ct. Apr. 17, 2025)]   MORE >>