← Archive
July 22, 2026Retirement

The Daily Brief for Benefits Professionals

BenefitsWire

Retirement Plans

July 22, 2026

— § —

11 items · ~3 min read

Top of the Brief

PBGC Proposes Rule on Providing Required Information

“The PBGC has issued a proposed rule that outlines policies for penalizing failure to provide certain required notices or other material information to the PBGC and plan participants in a timely manner.”

In this issue

Regulatory Action and Guidance (2)  ·  Retirement Plans (4)  ·  General Benefits (4)  ·  Litigation (1)

Regulatory Action and Guidance

2 items
Paper Statements Are Back, Because Apparently Congress Misses 1997

“Just when retirement plan sponsors thought disclosure rules couldn’t get any more convoluted, the Department of Labor has offered temporary relief on SECURE 2.0’s paper statement requirements. For anyone keeping score at home, Congress passed a law requiring certain retirement plan benefit statements to be furnished on paper, even in an age where most participants check balances on their phones while pretending to listen in meetings. Then questions emerged about implementation, practical...” MORE >>

Source: JD Supra

PBGC Proposes Rule on Providing Required Information

“The PBGC has issued a proposed rule that outlines policies for penalizing failure to provide certain required notices or other material information to the PBGC and plan participants in a timely manner.” MORE >>

Source: American Retirement Association

Retirement Plans

4 items
Developing Active Management in Uncertain Markets, Part 2: Why the Future of DC Investing May Be a Blend of Active and Passive

“How rising interest rates, evolving fixed income opportunities, personalized investing, and retirement income needs are driving fiduciaries toward a more balanced approach that combines the strengths of active and passive management to improve participant outcomes.” MORE >>

Source: 401(k) Specialist

[Regulatory Action and Guidance]

Developing Simplified Form 5500 Reporting Goal of New Bill

“Modernizing and streamlining the Form 5500 reporting requirements for employer-sponsored retirement plans is the purpose behind a bill that has been introduced in the Senate. The American Retirement Association supports the bipartisan legislation. Sens. Jim Banks (R-Ind.) and Cory Booker (D-NJ) on July 13 introduced the Form 5500 Filing Simplification Act (S. 4953). The legislation would establish a single, uniform filing deadline for Form 5500, while maintaining oversight and transparency for retirement plans.” MORE >>

Source: American Retirement Association

[General Benefits]

Jim Watkins’ Fiduciary Protocols Expose the Real Problem with Fixed Annuities -a Prohibited Transaction

“How can a committee conclude compensation is reasonable if it does not know what the compensation is?” MORE >>

Source: The Commonsense 401(k) Project

TIAA: All Workers Should Account for Career Interruptions, Moves in Retirement Planning

“U.S. retirees’ greatest regrets about their retirement planning may be a tool to better prepare younger generations for the future, according to a recently released report from the TIAA Institute, “Bridging the Gaps in Retirement Expectations.” MORE >>

Source: PLANSPONSOR

General Benefits

4 items
No ERISA Strings Attached: The DOL Weighs in on Employer and Employee Contributions to Trump Accounts

“Seyfarth Synopsis: The Department of Labor (DOL) recently issued Technical Release 2026-02, which clarifies that neither Trump Accounts nor employer contributions to Trump Accounts are considered “employee pension benefit plans” under Section 3(2) of ERISA.” MORE >>

Source: Seyfarth (Beneficially Yours)

Trump Accounts Move Ahead, but Employer Contribution Questions Remain

“Most notably for employers, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) issued Technical Release 2026-02, explaining that employer contribution programs for employees’ dependent children generally will not be treated as ERISA-covered plans. Why it matters: The guidance gives employers a clearer path to consider Trump account contributions as part of their employee benefit offerings. Still, it is informal guidance, so some employers may wait for more formal DOL rulemaking or additional Internal Revenue Service (IRS) instructions before moving forward.” MORE >>

Source: blog.ifebp.org

[Litigation]

Tennessee Enacts Non-Compete Law: $70K Income Threshold and Rebuttable Presumptions on Duration

“Tennessee House Bill 1034 was signed into law on May 7, 2026, and took effect July 1, 2026. The law introduces two significant changes to employment-based non-compete agreements. First, the law bars non-competes for employees earning below $70,000 annually. Second, it establishes statutory presumptions of reasonableness for non-compete duration. Under Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-1-211, non-compete agreements are prohibited for employees who earn less than $70,000 in “annualized compensation.” The statute defines the term “annualized compensation” broadly to include wages, salary, commissions, nondiscretionary bonuses, and other forms of remuneration. For hourly employees, annualized compensation is” MORE >>

Source: Foley & Lardner

[Litigation]

NLRB Advice Memo Concludes Noncompete Agreements Do Not Violate the National Labor Relations Act

“In a recent advice memorandum, published on June 26, 2026, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Division of Advice departed from the former NLRB General Counsel’s 2023 position (taken during the Biden administration) that overbroad noncompete agreements may violate the Act because they purportedly chill employees from exercising their Section 7 rights. The Division of Advice was asked to opine whether noncompete agreements violated the Act, as alleged in charges filed by two former employees who began working for a competitor. The Division of Advice concluded that the noncompete agreements did not violate the Act, stating that the current “General Counsel is of the view that non-compete” MORE >>

Source: Foley & Lardner

Litigation

1 item
ERIC Files Brief Backing Dismissal of Pepsi’s Tobacco Surcharge Case

“The ERISA Industry Committee filed an amicus brief with the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals urging it to affirm the dismissal of a challenge to PepsiCo’s tobacco-surcharge wellness program, arguing that federal law requires employers to provide alternative compliance standards only for employees with qualifying medical conditions, not all tobacco users. The brief in Noel v. PepsiCo Inc. contends that the district court correctly dismissed plaintiff Krista Noel’s claim seeking retroactive reimbursement of tobacco surcharges after she completed a smoking cessation program. According to ERIC, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act guarantees employees an annual opportunity to earn a well” MORE >>

Source: PLANADVISER

BenefitsWire · A digest for ERISA attorneys, third-party administrators, actuaries, recordkeepers, and benefits consultants.
An informational digest, not legal advice.
BDK2, LLC, 2503D N Harrison St PMB 2091, Arlington, VA 22207-1640

Get this in your inbox every morning.

Subscribe free