On May 19, 2026, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) proposed rule amendments that would significantly simplify executive compensation disclosure requirements for many public companies. The proposed rules would split public companies into large accelerated filers and non-accelerated filers. Non-accelerated filers would be subject to scaled executive compensation disclosure rules, similar to those presently applicable to emerging growth companies (EGCs), and they would not be required to conduct Say-on-Pay and related advisory votes. The SEC estimates that approximately 81% of public companies would be non-accelerated filers subject to these scaled disclosure rules. The remaining public companies would be large accelerated filers, representing the majority (about 93.5%) of public float, and they would remain subject to substantially the same executive compensation disclosure rules that currently apply to large accelerated filers.

Key Points

  • The Supreme Court held in M & K Employee Solutions, LLC v. Trustees of the IAM National Pension Fund that MEPPs may adopt actuarial assumptions after the measurement date when calculating withdrawal liability.  
  • The decision allows MEPP actuaries to set or revise discount rates after the measurement date and apply them retroactively, so long as they are supported by data and actuarial standards.  

Recently, the Sixth Circuit issued a significant ERISA preemption ruling for employers and pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs). The court held that Tennessee’s PBM laws, which require “any willing” pharmacy access and limiting incentives that steer members to plan‑favored pharmacies, are preempted as applied to self‑funded ERISA plans. The ruling draws a clear line between permissible PBM cost regulation and impermissible interference with plan design and administration.

In an unpublished memorandum decision, the Ninth Circuit in R.R. v. California Physicians’ Service d/b/a Blue Shield of California, affirmed the insurer and administrator’s denial of benefits for a dependent’s residential mental health treatment under an ERISA‑governed plan. The court applied abuse‑of‑discretion review and concluded that the denial was supported by the plan’s medical‑necessity criteria and the administrative record. The dissent, however, argued that the majority failed to meaningfully account for a structural conflict of interest and for the administrator’s handling of treating‑provider evidence and prior failed lower levels of care.

On January 22, the U.S. House of Representatives passed on a bipartisan basis HR 7148, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2026 (HR 7148). If it also wins passage in the Senate, the bill would, among other Trump administration priorities, impose new rules and requirements for pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) and pharmacy benefit administration more generally. As with prior federal legislative proposals, HR 7148 attempts to bring more transparency to the administration of pharmacy benefits for both fully insured and self-funded groups and would impose enhanced transparency requirements for PBMs contracting with Medicare Part D prescription drug plans PDP sponsors. Specifically, among other requirements, HR 7148 proposes the following new rules and regulations impacting PBM arrangements:

What Are Trump Accounts?

A Trump account is a type of individual retirement account (IRA) established for the exclusive benefit of a child and designated as a “Trump account” at inception. Created by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (the OBBBA), the account is governed by new Internal Revenue Code (IRC) provisions, including §530A and §128.[1] Trump accounts operate under special rules intended to seed and simplify long-horizon investing for children through the year before they turn 18 — referred to in the rules as the “growth period.” After the growth period, most special Trump account rules fall away, and thereafter the account largely functions like a standard traditional IRA under §408(a).

On January 12, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the petition for writ of certiorari in Guardian Flight, leaving in place the Fifth Circuit’s June 2025 decision that we covered in our prior post (available here). As a result, within the Fifth Circuit, providers cannot rely on the No Surprises Act (NSA) itself to enforce Independent Dispute Resolution (IDR) awards in court and face a heightened standing bar for ERISA-based claims where patients are insulated from financial harm. And the persuasive effect of the Fifth Circuit’s holding is bolstered nationwide.

In this installment of our Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation Preparing For 2026 series, hosts Constance Brewster and Jeff Banish walk employers through the new rules on mandatory Roth catch-up contributions and the optional “super catch-up contributions,” as we approach 2026. This episode distills what’s changing, who’s affected, updated limits for 2026, and practical steps plan sponsors should take now to prepare for 2026.

On November 24, the Ninth Circuit issued an unpublished memorandum disposition in Dedicato Treatment Center, Inc. v. Aetna Life Insurance Co., affirming dismissal of an out-of-network provider’s state-law claims as preempted by ERISA’s remedial scheme. The panel’s brief decision underscores that the Court’s 2024 decision in Bristol Holdings (discussed here) applies broadly to state-law causes of action arising from pre-service verification-of-benefits and authorization communications, even where a provider also pleads an alternative ERISA benefits claim pursuant to an assignment of benefits from the member. Although not precedential under Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3, the disposition is a clear, persuasive affirmation of Bristol’s reach.