Lowenstein Sandler's Executive Compensation and Employee Benefits Podcast

The episode delivers genuine technical content - specific contribution limits, distribution triggers, funding rules, and the non-compete/SRF divergence between 457F and 409A - but it is a statutory survey rather than a practitioner-experience-driven conversation. Insight-per-minute is moderate; there is real substance but little that goes beyond a careful reading of the code and regulations.

“Section 409A defines substantial risk of forfeiture more narrowly than 457F does...specifically, 409A does not recognize a non compete provision as substantial risk of forfeiture”

“for 2026, individuals age 50 or over can make a catch up contribution of up to $8,000 and those aged 60 to 63 can make a super catch up contribution of $11,250,000”

The episode is a faithful statutory explainer with no contrarian framing, no practitioner war stories, and no novel analytical perspective. The most interesting point - the non-compete trap between 457F and 409A - is still just a description of existing law rather than any original synthesis or insight.

“Governmental and tax exempt employers face a, uh, distinctive and complex regulatory landscape when it comes to designing executive compensation arrangements”

“This is intended to be a high level discussion and not legal advice, so please consult your advisors”

The three speakers are a law firm partner, counsel, and an associate - genuine subject-matter experts in executive compensation law, but this is a law firm marketing production with no outside guests, no senior in-house operators who have designed these plans, and no practitioners who have navigated the rules at scale inside a real organization.

“Hi, I'm Taryn, counsel in Lowenstein's Executive Compensation, Employment and Employee Benefits Group.”

“Hi, I'm um, Zach, an associate in Lowenstein Sandler's Executive Compensation, Employment and Employee Benefits Group.”

The episode does well at citing concrete statutory figures - dollar thresholds, age brackets, an effective date, and a two-year IRS guidance benchmark - but all specificity is drawn from the code and regulations themselves, not from real-world plan designs, employer case studies, or outcome data.

“Generally at least 2 years per IRS guidance to be considered substantial”

“effective December 29, 2025, under Secure Act 2.0, deferred amounts can also be accessed as qualified long term care distributions”

The host asks logical sequential follow-ups and does tee up the most practically important nuance (non-compete divergence in 409A vs 457F), but the entire conversation is clearly scripted and pre-planned with zero pushback, no tension, and no probing of ambiguous real-world scenarios. It functions as an audio version of a client alert, not a genuine dialogue.

“Are there any other ways you can have a good substantial risk of forfeiture besides continued employment?”

“Zach, can you elaborate a little bit on how the non compete divergence plays out in practice?”