Retirement Security Law Commons^™

Benefits Washing, Samantha Prince

Faculty Scholarly Works

Employee benefits often comprise between 24% and 26% of an employee’s total compensation. As such, it is important that people know what benefits companies actually offer. Unfortunately, instead of being transparent, numerous companies engage in what this author calls “benefits washing.” Benefits washing occurs when companies provide vague or misleading information about their employee benefits in an effort to make their benefits appear better than they are. The practice occurs in three primary ways: detail omission, attention deflection, and deceptive manipulation.

This Essay elaborates on what constitutes benefits washing. It presents numerous examples of America’s largest employers engaging in benefits …

Volume 48 Masthead, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

Volume 48 Masthead

Voting Matters: Materiality Considerations And The Shareholder Vote, Renee M. Jones

Seattle University Law Review

For the shareholder franchise to have meaning, shareholders must have access to relevant information to inform their voting decisions. The securities laws’ disclosure requirements play an essential role in informing the shareholder vote.

This Essay focuses on the question of the materiality of information in the context of shareholder voting. It addresses the question of whether ESG-related information is material, positioning the materiality inquiry within the context of shareholders’ voting decisions. It explores the definition of materiality with a focus on the “reasonable investor” concept embedded within the definition. The Essay argues that the implicit expectations of many commentators that …

Volume 48 Masthead, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

Volume 48 Masthead

Understanding The Big Three’S Wavering Support Of Environmental And Social Shareholder Proposals, Jeff Schwartz, Jefferson Jensen

Seattle University Law Review

Because of their substantial equity portfolios, BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street (the Big 3) are central players in corporate governance. It is, therefore, critical to understand how they vote. One puzzle is that their support for shareholder proposals on environmental and social matters appears to waiver. In 2020, for instance, BlackRock supported 11.1% of environmental proposals at S&P 500 firms. In 2021, it seemingly reversed course, supporting 55.2%. It then flipped again, supporting 32.1% in 2022. Such statistics suggest that the Big 3 are constantly changing their views on these topics. This Article seeks to better understand whether this is …

Volume 48 Masthead, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

Volume 48 Masthead

The Savings Mirage, Sara Sternberg Greene

Faculty Scholarship

In the past, we did not worry much about elderly poverty because retirement was short for most Americans – a brief jaunt of post-work life was soon met with death. But with the 100-year life becoming a reality for more Americans, an elderly poverty crisis looms. The American dream of abundant retirement savings remains elusive for many, particularly low-wage workers. While government initiatives emphasize individual responsibility and financial education as a way toward retirement success, the reality is that governmental policies are barriers, including asset limitations that prevent those who receive public benefits from saving. This chapter urges reform in …

Rebalancing Retirement: How 401(K) Plans Exacerbate Inequality And What We Can Do About It, Quinn Curtis, Leo E. Strine, David H. Webber

Faculty Scholarship

Incentives for individuals to save for retirement currently total 1.5% of US GDP. For that substantial investment, we get a system that actually deepens wealth inequality. The top 10% of earners capture 60% of the associated tax benefits, and employer matching contributions disproportionately favor the highest earners. Although defined contribution plans have long been subject to non-discrimination requirements aimed at ensuring that benefits do not accrue predominantly to the wealthiest participants, these rules have little bite. In an irony, we estimate that the entire 401(k) system would fail the non-discrimination test that every employer offering such a plan is expected …