The 7th Circuit found a district court was hasty in granting summary judgment to the health care system before all discovery was obtained to prove or disprove the plaintiff’s arguments.
Tag: Employee Retirement Income Security Act
The court decision in Lutz v. Kaleida Health reviews what it takes to be a retirement plan fiduciary and acknowledges that plaintiffs in ERISA litigation do not have to have all facts about fiduciary decisionmaking to state a plausible claim.
Citing the Supreme Court decision regarding church plan cases and using a three-part test, a federal judge found the St. Elizabeth Medical Center Employees’ Pension Plan falls under the ERISA exemption for church plans.
The investment committee for two Intel Corporation retirement plans asked the court to determine whether the provision of plan documents, in itself, creates for participants “actual knowledge” of an alleged fiduciary breach under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).
However, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals did remand back to a district court the calculation of interest on the $7,367,382.13 in damages awarded.
They are designed to increase plan sponsors’ and advisers’ awareness and understanding about basic fiduciary responsibilities when operating a retirement plan.
The relief on ERISA compliance applies to plan sponsors in Nebraska, Iowa and Alabama identified now or in the future for individual assistance by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
Participants in Chevron’s DC plan say the 9th Circuit applied unnecessarily high pleading standards, “precluding petitioners from pursuing claims that have been recognized as sufficiently plead in other circuits.”
A U.S. Appeals Court rejected a District Court’s finding that was similar to many decision in lawsuits following the Supreme Court’s decision in Fifth Third v. Dudenhoeffer.
A federal judge made this decision in allowing Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s motion to strike plaintiffs’ demand for a jury trial in a suit alleging breach of fiduciary duties and prohibited transactions.
H.R. 1439, known as the Increasing Access to a Secure Retirement Act, would establish a stronger Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) safe harbor for defined contribution (DC) plan sponsors to offer in-plan guaranteed income products.
The denial leaves in place an appellate court’s decision that claims in a lawsuit against the University of Southern California fell outside the scope of arbitration agreements signed by plaintiffs in the case, so the lawsuit over two of the university’s retirement plans may proceed.
In addition, the agency is holding a three-day webcast series in March.
In addition to a more than $13 million payment, Franklin has agreed to select a non-proprietary target-date fund (TDF) for its 401(k) plan’s investment lineup and increase company match contributions for three years.
Employees of Kroger say Central States’ plan trustees refused to negotiate a proposal with them after they filed an ERISA fiduciary duty lawsuit, but court documents show the trustees attempted negotiations after the filing of the suit and not before.
According to the lawsuit, Stadion directed participants’ accounts into investments that would better benefit itself and Mutual of Omaha, and Mutual of Omaha retained revenue sharing knowing of Stadion’s actions.
In addition, a federal district court has ordered the trustee of the plans not to serve in a fiduciary capacity to any Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) employee benefit plan.
In addition to asking the high court to weigh in on whether the plaintiff or the defendant bears the burden of proof on loss causation under ERISA, Putnam asked the court to determine whether showing that particular investment options did not perform as well as a set of index funds selected by the plaintiffs with the benefit of hindsight, suffices as a matter of law to establish “losses to the plan.”