Featured Topics
Retirement Industry
Magazine Archive
Where Do you Go for Financial Advice?
That was a key assertion from two prominent Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) lawyers in the wake of the unanimous ruling in LaRue v. DeWolff Boberg & Associates, Inc. Fred Reish, of the Los Angeles-based law firm of Reish Luftman Reicher & Cohen, and Mike Prame, head of the litigation practice at the Groom Law Group in Washington, D.C., pointed out that some lower courts have already reached similar conclusions as the high court. "That's the way lower courts have viewed this as well," said Prame. "The courts have been receptive to allowing the plaintiffs to proceed with these claims." For example, last month, the 6 th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which hears federal appeals from courts in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee, ruled in favor of individual breach suits and put itself at odds with the 4 th Circuit Court of Appeals. The 4 th Circuit is the Richmond, Virginia-based court that ruled against plaintiff James LaRue and prompted the appeal that set up Wednesday's landmark ruling (See Appellate Court Splits with Sister Court on 401(k) Breach Remedies ). Reish pointed out that potential solo ERISA litigants still have to be able to plausibly argue they were the individual victim of an improper plan-related issue - a legal "bad act." He predicted: "There won't be a flood of lawsuits filed willy nilly." The Thomas-Scalia Viewpoint Both Reish and Prame praised a separate opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas in which Justice Antonin Scalia joined. While agreeing with the majority opinion penned by Justice John Paul Stevens that LaRue deserved a chance to prove his fiduciary breach case (See Justices OK Individual ERISA Suits in Landmark Ruling ) - the court sent the matter back to the lower courts for further proceedings - Thomas and Scalia argued that the High Court should have ruled in LaRue's favor by simply interpreting the language of ERISA. The Stevens opinion asserted that the shift in legal and regulatory underpinning called for by the court was necessary because of the U.S. pension landscape is now so heavily DC-centric.
That was a key assertion from two prominent Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) lawyers in the wake of the unanimous ruling in LaRue v. DeWolff Boberg & Associates, Inc.
Fred Reish, of the Los Angeles-based law firm of Reish Luftman Reicher & Cohen, and Mike Prame, head of the litigation practice at the Groom Law Group in Washington, D.C., pointed out that some lower courts have already reached similar conclusions as the high court. "That's the way lower courts have viewed this as well," said Prame. "The courts have been receptive to allowing the plaintiffs to proceed with these claims."
For example, last month, the 6 th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which hears federal appeals from courts in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee, ruled in favor of individual breach suits and put itself at odds with the 4 th Circuit Court of Appeals. The 4 th Circuit is the Richmond, Virginia-based court that ruled against plaintiff James LaRue and prompted the appeal that set up Wednesday's landmark ruling (See Appellate Court Splits with Sister Court on 401(k) Breach Remedies ).
Reish pointed out that potential solo ERISA litigants still have to be able to plausibly argue they were the individual victim of an improper plan-related issue - a legal "bad act." He predicted: "There won't be a flood of lawsuits filed willy nilly."
The Thomas-Scalia Viewpoint
Both Reish and Prame praised a separate opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas in which Justice Antonin Scalia joined.
While agreeing with the majority opinion penned by Justice John Paul Stevens that LaRue deserved a chance to prove his fiduciary breach case (See Justices OK Individual ERISA Suits in Landmark Ruling ) - the court sent the matter back to the lower courts for further proceedings - Thomas and Scalia argued that the High Court should have ruled in LaRue's favor by simply interpreting the language of ERISA.
The Stevens opinion asserted that the shift in legal and regulatory underpinning called for by the court was necessary because of the U.S. pension landscape is now so heavily DC-centric.
Copyright ©1989-2010 Asset International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. No Reproduction without Prior Authorization