On remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, the Seventh Circuit issued its opinion in Hughes v. Northwestern University, concluding that participants in two Northwestern 403(b) plans plausibly pled fiduciary-breach claims based on...more
4/4/2023
/ 403(b) Plans ,
Breach of Duty ,
Class Action ,
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) ,
Excessive Fees ,
Fiduciary Duty ,
Hughes v. Northwestern University ,
Investment Management ,
Northwestern University ,
Pleading Standards ,
Recordkeeping Requirements ,
SCOTUS
The filing of a new 401(k) plan “excessive fee” or “investment underperformance” complaint is hardly “news” these days given the proliferation of suits that have been filed over the past several years. In fact, hardly a week...more
The Seventh Circuit recently provided a ray of sunshine in what has largely been a gloomy stretch for plan sponsors and fiduciaries defending ERISA breach of fiduciary duty claims based on allegedly excessive investment and...more
9/8/2022
/ 401k ,
Benefit Plan Sponsors ,
Breach of Duty ,
Class Action ,
Dismissals ,
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) ,
Fees ,
Fiduciary Duty ,
Hughes v. Northwestern University ,
Motion for Summary Judgment ,
SCOTUS
Since the Supreme Court’s ruling in Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer, courts around the country have overwhelmingly rejected ERISA fiduciary-breach claims by 401(k) plan participants seeking relief related to investments...more
In a unanimous (8-0) opinion authored by Justice Sotomayor, the U.S. Supreme Court held that an Arkansas state law regulating rates at which pharmacy benefits managers (PBMs) reimburse pharmacies is not preempted by ERISA. ...more
Earlier today, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed a decision by the Eighth Circuit holding that ERISA plan participants lack Article III standing to sue for breach of fiduciary duty to recover investment losses in a defined...more
6/2/2020
/ Article III ,
Breach of Duty ,
Defined Benefit Plans ,
Duty of Loyalty ,
Duty of Prudence ,
Employee Benefits ,
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) ,
Fiduciary Duty ,
Injury-in-Fact ,
Investment Adviser ,
Mismanagement ,
Pensions ,
Plan Participants ,
Retirement Plan ,
SCOTUS ,
Standing ,
Thole v U.S. Bank
Editor's Overview -
Happy New Year. We wrap-up 2019 with an article that reflects on significant developments in ERISA litigation during 2019, and takes a look at what's on the horizon for 2020. The courts (at all levels)...more
1/17/2020
/ 401k ,
Affordable Care Act ,
American Arbitration Association ,
Arbitration ,
Article III ,
Benefit Plan Sponsors ,
Best Practices ,
Breach of Duty ,
Cadillac Tax ,
Department of Labor (DOL) ,
Employee Benefits ,
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) ,
Employer Liability Issues ,
Individual Mandate ,
Intel Corp. Investment Policy Committee v. Sulyma ,
IRS ,
Loss Causation ,
Multiemployer Plan ,
Pleading Standards ,
Retirement Plan ,
SCOTUS ,
Standing ,
Thole v U.S. Bank ,
Venue
Editor's Overview -
As the summer heats up, so too has the U.S. Supreme Court's docket for next term where it has already agreed to hear three ERISA cases and more may be in the works. On the docket already are ERISA...more
7/16/2019
/ 401k ,
Affordable Care Act ,
Anti-Assignment Clauses ,
Benefit Plan Sponsors ,
Certiorari ,
Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBA) ,
Department of Labor (DOL) ,
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) ,
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ,
Final Rules ,
HRA ,
IBM ,
Retirement Plan ,
Roth IRA ,
SCOTUS ,
Statute of Limitations ,
Stock Drop Litigation
In an opinion released yesterday, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) must be interpreted according to “ordinary principles of contract law.” CNH Industrial N.V. v. Reese, No. 17-515,...more
Editor's Overview -
This month we feature three key developments. First, we review the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Gobeille v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 136 S. Ct. 936, 947 (2016) wherein the Supreme Court held that a...more
4/27/2016
/ 401k ,
Benefit Plan Sponsors ,
Best Interest Contract Exemptions ,
Best Interest Standard ,
Closely Held Businesses ,
Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBA) ,
Conflicts of Interest ,
Controlled Groups ,
Department of Labor (DOL) ,
Employee Benefits ,
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) ,
Fiduciary Duty ,
FIfth Third Bancorp v Dudenhoeffer ,
Final Rules ,
Forum Selection ,
Gobeille v Liberty Mutual Insurance Com. ,
Individual Retirement Account (IRA) ,
Investment Adviser ,
M&G Polymers v Tackett ,
Multiemployer Plan ,
Participant-Directed Plans ,
Partnership-in-Fact ,
PBGC ,
Preemption ,
PTEs ,
Reporting Requirements ,
Retirement Plan ,
SCOTUS ,
Stock Drop Litigation ,
Sun Capital Partners ,
UAW ,
Vesting ,
Withdrawal Liability
Today, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that an ERISA plan participant may allege that a plan fiduciary breached the duty of prudence by not properly monitoring the plan’s investment options as long as the alleged breach of the...more
In a decision watched closely by both employers and unions, a unanimous Supreme Court has resolved a thirty-plus year split among the circuit courts on the standards governing claims for retiree health-care benefits arising...more
Editor's Overview -
As it is well known, in Cigna Corp. v. Amara, 131 S. Ct. 1866 (2011), the U.S. Supreme Court identified several forms of appropriate equitable relief that may be available under Section 502(a)(3) of...more
11/19/2014
/ ADEA ,
Choice-of-Venue ,
CIGNA v Amara ,
Compensatory Awards ,
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) ,
Employer Group Health Plans ,
Employer Liability Issues ,
Equitable Estoppel ,
Equitable Relief ,
Equitable Surcharge ,
FSA ,
IRS ,
Life Insurance ,
Reformation ,
SCOTUS
Editor's Overview -
The end of the U.S. Supreme Court's term brought two significant ERISA decisions. The first concerns the standard of review that courts apply when evaluating ERISA stock-drop claims. As discussed...more
7/17/2014
/ Affordable Care Act ,
Burwell v Hobby Lobby ,
Contraceptive Coverage Mandate ,
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) ,
Employer Mandates ,
FIfth Third Bancorp v Dudenhoeffer ,
Hobby Lobby ,
Mental Health Parity Rule ,
Religious Exemption ,
Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) ,
SCOTUS ,
Stock Drop Litigation
For over two decades, federal courts have embraced the so-called Moench presumption of prudence in ERISA stock-drop cases. Pursuant to that presumption, courts have routinely dismissed such claims absent allegations in a...more
Earlier today, in Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to adopt the so-called Moench presumption of prudence pursuant to which many circuit courts had dismissed ERISA stock drop claims unless...more
Having settled into the new year, we reflect on decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court in 2013 that are likely to have a significant impact in the world of pension and welfare employee benefits and, in some cases, already have...more
3/4/2014
/ Affordable Care Act ,
Class Action ,
Class Certification ,
Comcast v. Behrend ,
Contraceptive Coverage Mandate ,
Contraceptives ,
DOMA ,
Employee Stock Purchase Plans ,
FICA Taxes ,
Health and Welfare Plans ,
Heimeshoff v. Hartford Life & Accident Insurance Co. ,
Hobby Lobby ,
Kathleen Sebelius ,
McCutchen v. U.S. Airways ,
Quality Stores ,
Reimbursements ,
SCOTUS ,
Statute of Limitations ,
Stocks ,
US v Windsor
The employee benefits issues to be considered by the U.S. Supreme Court continue to be of great significance to plan sponsors and fiduciaries. This month we review the Court's employee benefit decisions from 2013 and also...more
2/24/2014
/ 401k ,
Affordable Care Act ,
Appeals ,
Class Certification ,
Comcast v. Behrend ,
Contraceptive Coverage Mandate ,
Department of Labor (DOL) ,
DOMA ,
Employee Benefits ,
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) ,
ESOP ,
FICA Taxes ,
FIfth Third Bancorp v Dudenhoeffer ,
First Amendment ,
Health and Welfare Plans ,
Heimeshoff v. Hartford Life & Accident Insurance Co. ,
Hobby Lobby ,
Human Resources Professionals ,
Involuntary Reduction in Force ,
IRS ,
McCutchen v. U.S. Airways ,
MHPAEA ,
Provider Payments ,
Quality Stores ,
Same-Sex Marriage ,
SCOTUS ,
State of Celebration ,
Statute of Limitations ,
Transition Relief ,
US v Windsor
This month we look at part three of our three part series on Class Actions. In part three, Robert Rachal and M. Todd Mobley address the role of experts in class certification post Wal-Mart and Comcast and how to use and...more
1/21/2014
/ Blue Cross ,
Burden of Proof ,
Cafeteria Plans ,
Class Action ,
Class Certification ,
Comcast ,
Contraceptive Coverage Mandate ,
Daubert Standards ,
Discrimination ,
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) ,
Flexible Spending Accounts ,
FRCP 23 ,
General Motors ,
Health Savings Accounts ,
Human Resources Professionals ,
Individual Retirement Account (IRA) ,
Predominance Requirement ,
Same-Sex Marriage ,
SCOTUS ,
Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) ,
Wal-Mart
As Amy Covert and Aaron Feuer discuss below, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in Heimeshoff v. Hartford Life & Accident Insurance Co. where it is expected to rule next term on whether plan sponsors may dictate in the...more
7/12/2013
/ Affordable Care Act ,
Certiorari ,
Compensation & Benefits ,
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) ,
Fees ,
Form 720 ,
Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company ,
Heimeshoff v. Hartford Life & Accident Insurance Co. ,
Insurance Industry ,
PCORI ,
SCOTUS ,
Statute of Limitations
ERISA plan sponsors, and employers more broadly, have been anxiously awaiting two rulings from the U.S. Supreme Court that they hope would clarify the ability to enforce class action waivers in arbitration agreements....more
Today, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling in U.S. Airways, Inc. v. McCutchen in which the Court unanimously ruled that a clearly drafted reimbursement clause will trump all equitable defenses....more