News & Analysis as of

Fiduciary Duty Employee Benefits Supreme Court of the United States

Mayer Brown

US Supreme Court Grants Review in One ERISA Case, and Has Now Called for Views of the Solicitor General in Two Other ERISA Cases

Mayer Brown on

Fresh off its April 17, 2025 decision in Cunningham v. Cornell University, the US Supreme Court is setting the stage to delve back into ERISA issues next Term. On Monday, the Court granted certiorari to resolve a circuit...more

Hall Benefits Law

SCOTUS Revives Cornell 403b Lawsuit: What Fiduciaries Must Know

Hall Benefits Law on

Fiduciaries must treat plan management as an active compliance obligation to avoid legal exposure, says a Hall Benefits Law practitioner. On April 17, 2025, the US Supreme Court issued a unanimous per curiam opinion in...more

Keating Muething & Klekamp PLL

Benefits Monthly Minute - May 2025

The May Monthly Minute brings you up-to-date on mental health parity enforcement relief, as well as smoker surcharge and prohibited transaction litigation. Nonenforcement of 2024 Mental Health Parity Regulations - Earlier...more

Kilpatrick

5 Key Takeaways | Plan Investments and Fiduciary Risk Mitigation in the Trump Era

Kilpatrick on

The landscape for retirement plan investments and fiduciary risks is shifting in the early part of the second Trump Administration, both due to changes in the administration’s policies and developments in the courts....more

Carlton Fields

Considerations for Plan Sponsors in the Wake of Cunningham v. Cornell

Carlton Fields on

Excessive fee cases against plans governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) have been on the rise for the last decade. ERISA litigation is expanding with novel theories such as forfeiture litigation....more

Ary Rosenbaum - The Rosenbaum Law Firm P.C.

Cornell case makes it easier for plan participants to sue

For years, I observed that federal courts were growing weary of cases involving fee litigation, but then the Supreme Court changed that perspective....more

Pullman & Comley - Labor, Employment and...

Employee Benefit Plan Fiduciaries: Why Solid Fee Benchmarking Should Be On Your To-Do List

Certain transactions between employee benefit plans and “parties in interest” are prohibited under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA). ...more

Maynard Nexsen

Navigating Increased ERISA Litigation Risk Post-Cunningham: How to Protect Your Plan

Maynard Nexsen on

Under the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Cunningham v. Cornell University, No. 23-1007 (April 17, 2025), plaintiffs asserting that ERISA plan administrators engaged in prohibited transactions under ERISA Section 406 are...more

Holland & Hart - The Benefits Dial

Truck on Fire … Supreme Court Relaxes ERISA Pleading Standards

by Alex Smith The Supreme Court recently issued a decision regarding the pleading standards for ERISA prohibited transactions claims in a case involving Cornell’s 403(b) plan to resolve a federal circuit court split. Under...more

Ropes & Gray LLP

Plan Sponsors Beware: The U.S. Supreme Court Just Eased Requirements to File ERISA Prohibited Transaction Suits

Ropes & Gray LLP on

Many sponsors and fiduciaries of ERISA retirement plans had been hoping that the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion in Cunningham v. Cornell University (No. 23-1007) would articulate new pleading standards that would slow the...more

Baker Botts L.L.P.

SCOTUS Holds ERISA Requires No Additional Pleading Requirements beyond § 1106 Elements for Prohibited-Transaction Claims,...

Baker Botts L.L.P. on

On April 17, 2025, the Supreme Court of the United States clarified the pleading requirements to bring a prohibited-transaction claim under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) in Cunningham v....more

Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP

Supreme Court lowers pleading standard for ERISA prohibited transaction claims

The US Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision on April 17, 2025 that could have a lasting impact on retirement plan litigation. The decision in Cunningham v. Cornell University clarifies that when plaintiffs bring...more

Lowenstein Sandler LLP

Supreme Court Ruling Makes It Easier for Participants To Sue Plan Fiduciaries

Lowenstein Sandler LLP on

On April 17, the Supreme Court unanimously resolved a circuit split in Cunningham v. Cornell University, holding that plan participants need only allege that fiduciaries engaged in a “prohibited transaction” under the...more

Jackson Lewis P.C.

Supreme Court Clarifies ERISA Prohibited Transaction Pleading Standards

Jackson Lewis P.C. on

On April 17, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion, resolved a circuit split and established a plaintiff-friendly pleading standard for ERISA prohibited transaction claims in Cunningham v. Cornell University,...more

DLA Piper

Supreme Court Opens the Door to Increased ERISA Litigation

DLA Piper on

The US Supreme Court has issued a unanimous opinion that could lead to an increase in litigation for prohibited transaction claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA)....more

Littler

The Supreme Court Relieves ERISA Plaintiffs of a Pleading Requirement: What’s Next for ERISA Plan Fiduciaries?

Littler on

On April 17, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision that dealt a blow to benefit plan fiduciaries nationwide. The Court unanimously held in Cunningham v. Cornell University that a plaintiff asserting that a plan and...more

Husch Blackwell LLP

Supreme Court Decision Means Defense of ERISA Prohibited Transaction Claims Just Got More Difficult and More Protracted

Husch Blackwell LLP on

On April 17, 2025, the Supreme Court decided Cunningham v. Cornell University, unanimously holding that a plaintiff can state a valid claim under ERISA by merely alleging that a plan used “plan assets” to pay a service...more

Groom Law Group, Chartered

Cunningham v. Cornell: Supreme Court Lowers Bar for ERISA 406(a) Claims

On April 17, 2025, the Supreme Court ruled in Cunningham v. Cornell University that, to state a claim under ERISA section 406(a), plaintiffs need only allege the elements contained in section 406(a). Prior to the Supreme...more

Holland & Knight LLP

Supreme Court Ruling Eases Path for ERISA Prohibited Transaction Claims

Holland & Knight LLP on

The U.S. Supreme Court on April 17, 2025, issued a greatly anticipated decision in which the justices unanimously held that plaintiffs alleging a prohibited transaction under Section 1106(a)(1)(C) of the Employee Retirement...more

Miller Canfield

ERISA in the Supreme Court: Implications of Cunningham v Cornell University

Miller Canfield on

On April 17, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion in Cunningham v Cornell University, addressing the pleading standard applicable to prohibited transaction claims under the Employee Retirement Income...more

A&O Shearman

Supreme Court’s Cornell decision sets low pleading bar for ERISA claims

A&O Shearman on

In a decision poised to change the landscape of Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) litigation, on April 17, 2025, the Supreme Court held in Cunningham et al. v. Cornell University et al. that a claimant...more

Proskauer - Employee Benefits & Executive...

Supreme Court Establishes Lower Pleading Standard for Prohibited Transaction Claims

In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Cunningham v. Cornell University that plaintiffs can satisfy the requirements for pleading prohibited party-in interest transactions under ERISA section 406(a) without...more

Venable LLP

Supreme Court Endorses Plaintiff-Friendly Prohibited Transaction Pleading Standard

Venable LLP on

On April 17, 2025, the Supreme Court resolved a circuit split on the appropriate pleading standard for a specific type of prohibited transaction claim under ERISA. While that decision may sound dry and technical, the...more

Kilpatrick

The Supreme Court Delivers Troubling Decision for ERISA Excess Fee Cases

Kilpatrick on

On April 17, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion that has the potential to make it more difficult for defendants to have excess fee cases for 401(k) or 403(b) plans dismissed at an early stage of...more

Seyfarth Shaw LLP

Supreme Court Lowers Bar to Pleading Prohibited Transactions, Despite “Serious Concerns” of Meritless Litigation

Seyfarth Shaw LLP on

In a unanimous decision reversing dismissal of prohibited transaction claims based on fees paid to defined contribution plan recordkeepers, the Supreme Court held that ERISA’s prohibited transaction exemptions are affirmative...more

94 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 4

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide