DOL must issue ERISA guidance on ‘foreign adversary’ investments

What does the memorandum say about ERISA plans?
What foreign investments are in scope?
The memorandum applies to the following “foreign adversaries”:
- China, including Hong Kong and Macau
- Cuba
- Iran
- North Korea
- Russian Federation
- Venezuela
However, the memorandum doesn’t define the term “foreign adversary company” or explain what level of investment or control by these entities will cause a company to fall into that category. The anticipated guidance may provide more clarity.
How have similar issues been addressed in the past?
Past efforts to address plan investments in problematic foreign jurisdictions have generally come from Congress enacting legislative safe harbors that allowed — but didn’t require — ERISA fiduciaries to implement investment restrictions or divest existing investment holdings:
- Section 204 of the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Divestment Act of 2010 (Pub. L. No. 111-195) provides that ERSIA fiduciaries may divest plan assets from or avoid investing plan assets in any person they deem from credible public information to engage in investment activities in Iran.
- Section 5 of the Sudan Accountability and Investment Act of 2007 (Pub. L. No. 110-174) provided a similar safe harbor for any person a fiduciary deems to engage in investment activities in Sudan.
Both legislative safe harbors required fiduciaries to prudently conclude that taking these actions wouldn’t result in the plan receiving a lower rate of return than alternative investments with commensurate degrees of risk or accepting a higher degree of risk than alternative investments with commensurate rates of return.
How might DOL structure its guidance?
DOL’s guidance on foreign adversary investments may take an approach similar to the earlier legislative safe harbors — but could be more prescriptive. The guidance may address the following issues:
- How to determine whether an issuer of public market securities is a foreign adversary company
- What conditions ERISA fiduciaries must meet when considering whether to divest existing plan investments in foreign adversary companies (including whether doing so is optional or mandatory)
- Whether similar or other conditions apply when evaluating whether a plan can (or must) avoid future investments in foreign adversary companies
- To what extent must fiduciaries evaluate indirect investments in foreign adversary companies through pooled investment funds, like mutual funds and collective investment trusts
However, unlike the prior legislative safe harbors, a DOL regulatory safe harbor would only be binding on the agency and wouldn’t necessarily prevent participants from bringing private lawsuits alleging ERISA fiduciary violations. Sponsors and fiduciaries should continue to monitor future developments.
Related resources
Non-Mercer resources
- Presidential memorandum (White House, Feb. 21, 2025)
- Fact sheet (White House, Feb. 21, 2025)
Related insights
-
Law & PolicyIRS has extended several tax filing and payment deadlines for retirement plan sponsors and participants affected by recent severe storms, tornadoes and flooding in…
-
Law & Policy
Roundup: Employer resources on the changing landscape of DEI
On June 29, 2023, the US Supreme Court ruled colleges' use of race as a factor in student admissions is unconstitutional. -
Law & Policy
Roundup of selected state health developments, first-quarter 2025
States have focused on family and medical leave, pharmacy benefits, artificial intelligence, network design, telehealth, and other healthcare areas.