A newly filed complaint takes issue with the way MetLife calculates the actuarial equivalence of different types of annuity benefit options available in the firm’s pension plan.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that the facts alleged are insufficient to support a plausible inference of breach of the duty of loyalty, breach of the duty of prudence, or that a prohibited transaction took place.
The long-running litigation appears to be heading for a mediated conclusion, after a contentious discovery process that produced over 260,000 pages of documents and more than 20 depositions.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals previously concluded that the challenge to the management of the University of Southern California’s retirement plans fell outside the scope of the arbitration agreements because the claims were brought on behalf of the plans, not the individuals.
A lawsuit alleges a health care system in North Carolina falsely claims to be a governmental entity, allowing it to dodge ERISA requirements and protections for its retirement and health plans.
It has only been about a year and a half since large U.S. universities became the target of ERISA lawsuits, making for a fresh crop of claims and defense strategies that matter for all types of DC plans.
With the launch of its latest analytics module, Lex Machina has uncovered a variety of trends across all the flavors of ERISA litigation.
The agency says plan sponsors have fiduciary responsibility for selecting and monitoring Retirement Clearinghouse’s Auto-Portability Solution, but once assets have been transferred from a plan sponsor’s retirement plan, it is no longer a fiduciary with respect to those assets.
The agency is inviting public comment on the proposed exemption and encourages additional proposals.
In a mixed ruling, the court again leaves room for re-pleading of the plaintiffs’ failed arguments, making the filing of a third amended complaint likely before any allegations can advance to trail.
The question for the Supreme Court is whether the plaintiff or the defendant bears the burden of proof on loss causation under Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) Section 409(a).
The plan’s sole fiduciary and trustee has agreed to restore pension assets that, according to an EBSA investigation, were improperly directed to operating expenses and illegal personal loans.
The case already made it once to the Supreme Court which helped to clarify what it means to be a “church plan” run by a principal-purpose organization under ERISA—but the underlying facts of the lawsuit are still being fought over in district court.
The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found “several errors of law in the district court’s rulings.”
The lawsuit not only calls out Fidelity’s use of all proprietary funds in its 401(k) investment lineup, but also accuses it of not negotiating for revenue sharing rebates, not using the lowest-cost share classes, not investigating alternative investment vehicles and not evaluating stable value fund options when its money market funds poorly performed.
Leaving only the prohibited transaction claim to move forward, a federal judge found most defendants were not fiduciaries with respect to the claim and dismissed all but the plan’s investment committee as defendants.
The court holds that bundling services or revenue sharing are common and acceptable investment industry practices that frequently inure to the benefit of ERISA plans.
The court granted the Principal defendants’ motion for summary judgment on all counts in a case questioning guaranteed investment contract arrangements.
A case set to go to the U.S. Supreme Court for a decision about who bears the burden of proof when fiduciary harm is alleged in ERISA cases has been settled. Two legal experts weigh in.