Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherBrowse by ChannelAbout the NetworkJoin the NetworkProductsSub-MenuProducts OverviewBlog ProBlog PlusBlog PremierMicrositeSyndication PortalsAbout UsContactSubscribeSupport
Book a Demo
Search
Close

Plan Forfeiture Litigation: A Trend to Watch

By Kelly Smith Hathorn, Richard I. Cohen & Ryan A. Less on February 11, 2025
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
employeebenefits

The most recent wave of ERISA litigation is focused on the use of plan forfeitures in 401(k) plans, with the newest case, Armenta v. WillScot Mobile Mini Holdings Corp. being filed just last week. Although, for years, many defined contribution plan documents have provided that forfeitures may be used to offset employer contributions (among other uses), the lawsuits allege that using forfeitures in that way violates ERISA.

Forfeitures typically occur when participants leave employment before they are fully vested in the employer contributions in their plan accounts. Treasury regulations have long provided that forfeitures “must be used as soon as possible to reduce the employer’s contributions under the plan.”  26 CFR 1.401-7(a).  In 2023, the IRS proposed a regulation making clear that 401(k) plan forfeitures can be used, as specified in the plan document: “(1) to pay plan administrative expenses, (2) to reduce employer contributions under the plan, or (3) to increase benefits in other participants’ accounts in accordance with plan terms”.  88 Fed Reg. 12282-83 (Feb. 2023).  

Although the IRS’ position on forfeitures has been clear, ERISA, as enforced by the Department of Labor, does not address the use of forfeitures.  The lawsuits call into question whether a fiduciary who uses plan forfeitures to reduce employer contributions under the plan has violated an ERISA fiduciary duty or engaged in a prohibited transaction, even if the plan document authorizes that use.

In the wake of these lawsuits, plan fiduciaries have questioned whether they should continue their longstanding practice of using forfeitures to offset employer contributions.  It is too soon to assess what the results of the lawsuits will be. While some lawsuits have already been dismissed, several lawsuits have survived the initial motion to dismiss and are proceeding ahead, although they have yet to be heard on the merits of the case. 

In the meantime, plan sponsors should review their plan design to make sure the intended use of plan forfeitures is clearly authorized in the plan document, including whether the plan document gives fiduciaries any discretion over how forfeitures are used.  They should also review participant communications, such as in the summary plan description, to see how forfeiture allocations are explained to participants. If you have any questions about the impact of these cases on your plan operation, please contact Kelly Hathorn.

Photo of Kelly Smith Hathorn Kelly Smith Hathorn

Kelly Smith Hathorn advises public and private sector employers on a variety of employee benefits issues. Kelly has experience with qualified plan design, drafting, administration/compliance, and termination. She also has experience with non-qualified deferred compensation arrangements, including drafting and reviewing executive employment agreements…

Kelly Smith Hathorn advises public and private sector employers on a variety of employee benefits issues. Kelly has experience with qualified plan design, drafting, administration/compliance, and termination. She also has experience with non-qualified deferred compensation arrangements, including drafting and reviewing executive employment agreements and incentive plans for Code Section 409A compliance.

Read more about Kelly Smith HathornEmail
Show more Show less
Photo of Richard I. Cohen Richard I. Cohen

Richard Cohen’s practice encompasses pensions and employee benefits, including tax-qualified retirement plans, 403(b) plans, nonqualified deferred compensation plans, SERPs, cafeteria plans, ERISA and COBRA compliance. Richard speaks on pension and employee benefit issues to business associations, client groups, and the Connecticut Bar Association.

Read more about Richard I. CohenEmailRichard's Linkedin Profile
Photo of Ryan A. Less Ryan A. Less

Ryan Less practices as part of Shipman’s Tax and Employee Benefits Practice Group. Ryan provides ERISA advice to a variety of employee benefit plan sponsors, including corporate, nonprofit, and governmental plans. He regularly advises on statutory and regulatory compliance matters arising in connection…

Ryan Less practices as part of Shipman’s Tax and Employee Benefits Practice Group. Ryan provides ERISA advice to a variety of employee benefit plan sponsors, including corporate, nonprofit, and governmental plans. He regularly advises on statutory and regulatory compliance matters arising in connection with employee benefit plans, programs and arrangements, including fiduciary duty questions, benefit plan participant eligibility, and resolution of plan errors under the IRS’ Employee Plans Compliance Resolution System.

Read more about Ryan A. LessEmail
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Tax
  • Blog:
    Connecticut State & Local Tax Alert
  • Organization:
    Shipman & Goodwin LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

LexBlog, Inc. logo
Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
Real Lawyers
99 Park Row
  • About LexBlog
  • Careers
  • Press
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Privacy Policy
  • Editorial Policy
  • Disclaimer
  • Terms of Service
  • RSS Terms of Service
  • Products
  • Blog Pro
  • Blog Plus
  • Blog Premier
  • Microsite
  • Syndication Portals
  • LexBlog Community
  • Resource Center
  • 1-800-913-0988
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
  • Resource Center
  • Blogging 101

New to the Network

  • Beyond the First 100 Days
  • In the Legal Interest
  • Cooking with SALT
  • The Fiduciary Litigator
  • CCN Mexico Report™
Copyright © 2025, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo