Received a PM asking me to respond.

Initial read: Corporations will be required to X whether they (corps) have the reserves to J and K.

Hmm. K is a second requirement. So the parallelism would actually have to be something like:
Corporations will be required to X (report... whether... employees) and (to) Y. Except X and Y are not parallel in the original. Eliminate A. Check the other choices for this same issue.

B is matching up the wrong info again - trying to make "that their employees earned" and "that the information" parallel, but that can't work. Then the second item would read "the pension benefits... that the information be published." Doesn't make sense. Eliminate B.

C and D remove the parallelism (the word "and" is gone). Skip those for a moment.

E again has a parallelism problem. Can't match it up with "whether they have" because "whether they have" is in present tense, while "have published" would be present perfect. If you're going to reuse "have" for a present perfect construction, then the first part also needs to be written in present perfect. (Example: She has written three books and published two. "has written... and (has) published.") Eliminate.

Back to C. Now, the meaning is messed up. It seems to be saying that the employees had something to do with the information being published? Eliminate. So D is the answer - only one left.

Now we've got this construction:
Corporations will soon be required to X (report whether they pay the benefits earned), information (referring back to X) that must (here's the requirement again!) be published...

So it maintains the original meaning (two things will be required), and it appropriately introduces the new word "information" to refer back to the entire concept discussed in X.