El Paso Corp. was asking for $1.5 million in litigation fees for a cash balance plan suit that was ultimately decided in the company’s favor. Senior Judge Walker D. Miller of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado found a good deal of legal uncertainty about cash
balance plans when the original suit was filed against El Paso
Corp. in 2004. That meant that there was no bad faith or culpability
shown by the participants challenging the plan, the court argued. El
Paso requested it be awarded attorneys’ fees for the time its attorneys
spent on the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) portion of
the case and that related age-discrimination allegations were not at
issue.
“[E]ven though I ultimately determined that Plaintiffs’ claims
should not go forward, I cannot conclude that Plaintiffs’ assertions
were so lacking in merit that they should bear the implicit sanction of
an attorneys’ fee award for the Defendants,” Miller wrote.
In addition to ruling for the employer on the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) claims, Miller also eventually
tossed out age discrimination allegations (see “Court Dismisses Cash Balance ADEA Charges“).
The case is Tomlinson v. El Paso Corp., D. Colo., No. 1:04-cv-02686-WDM-CBS.
By using this site you agree to our network wide Privacy Policy.
The presumption of prudence was not enough to dismiss claims a company
breached its Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) fiduciary duties by offering company stock.
U.S. District Judge Alexander Williams, Jr. in Maryland ruled that despite the prevalence of the presumption established in Moench v. Robertson,
it does not apply to all cases; in fact, several courts have found that the
application of the presumption is inappropriate at the Motion to Dismiss
stage.
Williams found that the plan document for the retirement
plan sponsored by Coventry Healthcare permitted the fiduciaries to
freely add or eliminate investment funds, including Coventry Stock,
from the group of Investment Funds offered in the plan. Accordingly,
nothing in the plan documents prevented the fiduciaries from taking
corrective action to prevent erosion of the plan assets stemming from
the plan holdings of Coventry Stock during the class period.
Williams decided that “at this juncture, the Court cannot
dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims based on breach of fiduciary duty on the
grounds that Defendants did not have discretion to alter the Plan’s
investment options. Factual development of the record is necessary for
just determination of this claim.”
In addition, the court found that whether the company’s
alleged knowledge of claims processing problems as of April 2008
actually made further investment imprudent is an issue necessitating
further factual development.
Williams ruled that the plaintiffs adequately alleged that
their financial loss under the plan resulted from the defendants’
breach of fiduciary duties, and accordingly, reliance was sufficiently
alleged. In addition, Williams said plaintiffs sufficiently alleged that
public statements made about the claims processing problems were
materially misleading.
Williams also refused to dismiss claims that certain
defendants failed to “ensure that their fiduciary appointees appreciated
the true extent of Coventry’s highly risky and inappropriate business
practices, and the likely impact of such practices on the value of the
Plans’ investment in Coventry’s Stock.” The Court found plaintiffs have
stated a cognizable claim for failure to monitor.
Williams said the benefit of discovery is necessary for a
just determination of the extent to which the monitoring defendants
possessed a fiduciary duty over plan investments. However, at this
juncture, dismissal of this claim is inappropriate.
However, the court did dismiss conflict of interest
claims. Williams noted that the plaintiffs appear to base their conflict
of interest allegations on the fact that the defendants sold a
substantial amount of stock during the class period. However, the time
in which plaintiffs allege that this stock was sold was from May 2007 to
February 2008, and the complaint alleged defendants were not aware of
the claims processing issues until April 2008, so any conflict of
interest that the plaintiffs allege cannot have arisen until April 2008.
Since it did not appear as though any named defendant sold any stock
after April 2008, the court dismissed this count.
The case is In reCoventry Healthcare Inc. Securities Litigation, D. Md., No. 8:09-cv-02850-AW.