News & Analysis as of

Settlement › Motion to Dismiss › Supreme Court of the United States

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

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

Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP

Supreme Court lowers pleading standard for ERISA prohibited transaction claims

Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP on

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

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

Groom Law Group, Chartered

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

Groom Law Group, Chartered on

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

Seward & Kissel LLP

Red River Rivalry, Ethical Lapse, Containment Facility, and Affirmative Consent

Seward & Kissel LLP on

J&J talc opponents decry bankruptcy as "deja vu all over again" | Reuters - Johnson & Johnson's latest bankruptcy attempt faced immediate opposition from cancer victims' attorneys. They argued that the bankruptcy was a...more

Haug Partners LLP

10 Years after Actavis, the Cases that Follow Tell a Story

Haug Partners LLP on

I. Introduction - No pharmaceutical antitrust decision has had more impact than the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, a decision which officially defined the term “reverse payment...more

King & Spalding

Second Circuit Finds Risk of Future Identity Theft Insufficient to Confer Article III Standing in a Data Security Class Action

King & Spalding on

On April 26, 2021, the Second Circuit considered—for the first time in a published decision—the question of Article III standing in the context of a data security case. In McMorris v. Carlos Lopez & Associates LLC, the court...more

Husch Blackwell LLP

Supreme Court Not Likely to Rule this Term on Issues Affecting Transgender Students’ Access to Restrooms that Correspond with...

Husch Blackwell LLP on

The Supreme Court recently lost an opportunity to address important issues affecting transgender students. On August 25, 2017, the Kenosha Unified School District filed a petition for certiorari after the Seventh Circuit...more

Pierce Atwood LLP

Comcast and its Discontents

Pierce Atwood LLP on

Shortly after the Supreme Court’s decisions in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011) and AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 321 (2011), I appeared before a federal district judge on a motion to dismiss...more

10 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"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:
Sign up Log in
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide