In keeping with the theme of legal developments aimed at improving retirement preparedness, on May 23, the House of Representatives passed the Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement Act of 2019 (SECURE Act). The Foley & Lardner Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation team will be monitoring this bipartisan legislation as it makes its way to the Senate for consideration.
Some highlights of the SECURE Act include:
- Requiring 401(k) plans to cover long-term part-time employees working at least 500 hours per year for three consecutive years
- Increasing the required minimum distribution start date from age 70 ½ to age 72
- Providing new flexibility for sponsors of safe harbor 401(k) plans
- Allowing penalty-free 401(k) plan in-service withdrawals up to $5,000 within a year of the birth or adoption of a child to pay certain qualified expenses
Once again, stay tuned for further developments.
Disclaimer
This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.
Author(s)
Related Insights
11 November 2024
Manufacturing Industry Advisor
Foley Automotive Update
Foley is here to help you through all aspects of rethinking your long-term business strategies, investments, partnerships, and technology. Contact the authors, your Foley relationship partner, or our Automotive Team to discuss and learn more.
11 November 2024
Labor & Employment Law Perspectives
Recent California Federal Court Decision Indicates That Determining Whether an Employment Agreement Illegally Restrains Lawful Employment Can Be a Fact-Intensive Inquiry Requiring Discovery
In a recent decision issued by the United States District Court for the Central District of California, a federal court in California was tasked with determining whether dismissal of a cause of action for tortious interference with contract at the outset of a case is appropriate where the underlying contract arguably contained restrictive covenants in violation of California Business & Professions Code section 16600.
11 November 2024
Blogs
“Captive Audience” Bans: Employers Should Be Aware of This Trend
As organized labor activity has been on the rise in recent years and stories about union-related matters have become regular news, labor relations questions have ever-increasingly become front-of-mind for employers.