Episode 322 -- Checking in on Caremark Cases
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
The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision Cunningham v. Cornell University, 145 S.Ct. 1020 (2025) significantly lowers the pleading standard for prohibited transaction claims under Section 406(a) of the Employee Retirement...more
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Key takeaway: The Supreme Court held that to state an ERISA prohibited-transaction claim under 29 U.S.C. § 1106(a), a plaintiff needs only to plausibly allege the elements contained in § 1106(a) itself and does not need to...more
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
The Supreme Court of the United States issued one decision today: Cunningham v. Cornell University, No. 23-1007: This case addresses the pleading standard to assert a claim under a provision of the Employee Retirement...more
On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the Seventh Circuit’s decision in Hughes v. Northwestern University, an important ERISA case. Although the Court’s decision vacated a Seventh Circuit victory for plan sponsor...more
On December 6, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court heard argument in Hughes v. Northwestern University, a case debating the allegations necessary to state a plausible claim for breach of ERISA’s fiduciary duties in cases challenging...more
On November 9, 2020, the Supreme Court declined to consider an appeal from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Retirement Plans Committee of IBM v. Jander, leaving unresolved for now questions about the specificity...more
In January, the Supreme Court issued its highly anticipated opinion in Retirement Plans Committee of IBM v. Jander, No. 18-1165, a case that promised to clarify the pleading standard applicable to ERISA stock-drop cases. But...more
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
The Second Circuit sent shock waves through the community of ERISA stock-drop practitioners late last year in Jander v. Retirement Plans Committee of IBM by finding plan participants had plausibly alleged a breach of duty of...more
On Monday, the US Supreme Court agreed to review the Second Circuit’s decision in Jander v. Retirement Plans Committee of IBM, a “stock drop” lawsuit against IBM’s benefit plan fiduciaries. The Second Circuit’s decision...more
In December 2018, we reported here that the Second Circuit became the first court at any level to allow an ERISA stock-drop claim to survive a motion to dismiss since the Supreme Court revamped the pleading standard for such...more
A federal district court in Mississippi ruled for the first time that the “more harm than good” pleading standard established by the Supreme Court in Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer, 134 S. Ct. 2459 (2014), applied to...more
On January 25, 2016, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a per curiam opinion in Amgen Inc. v. Harris, holding that the Amgen, Inc. employees who filed suit after the value of the employer stock in which they had...more