Supreme Court Declines to Hear Ruby Tuesday Appeal in Equitable Surcharge Case

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a case brought by former Ruby Tuesday Inc. executives seeking clarification on the remedies available to participants under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

The petition stemmed from litigation filed by 96 former Ruby Tuesday managers and executives who participated in a nonqualified executive deferred compensation arrangement known as a “top hat” plan. The participants alleged they lost retirement benefits after the restaurant chain entered bankruptcy.

Initial Complaint

Aldridge v. Regions Bank centers on the role of Regions Bank, which oversaw corporate-owned life insurance policies used to informally fund two executive retirement plans after Ruby Tuesday was acquired by NRD Capital in 2017. Because Ruby Tuesday was under Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, the former executives pursued claims against the bank, rather than the company.

The plaintiffs filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee in 2021 under ERISA Section 502(a)(3), seeking an equitable surcharge equal to benefits they alleged were lost because of Regions Bank’s actions. The case also included state law claims that were later dismissed.

After years of litigation, U.S. District Judge Clifton Corker granted summary judgment in favor of Regions Bank in 2024.

Appeals Process

The former executives appealed, but the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals—which hears appeals from federal courts in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee—affirmed in 2025 both the dismissal of the state-law claims and the summary judgment ruling.

In the 6th Circuit’s decision, a three-judge panel held that the state-law claims were preempted by ERISA because they sought recovery of plan benefits and would impose duties on a party involved in administering an ERISA-covered arrangement.

More significantly, the plaintiffs argued that participants should be able to pursue an equitable surcharge remedy under ERISA. Federal appellate courts have taken differing approaches to that issue. The 2nd, 5th, 7th, 8th and 11th Circuits have recognized surcharge claims in at least some ERISA contexts, while the 4th and 6th Circuits have taken a narrower view.

Following the 6th Circuit Court’s decision, Groom Law Group published an analysis explaining the court’s reasoning for dismissing the state-law claims and concluding that the plaintiffs’ request for lost benefits did not constitute “equitable relief” under ERISA.

“Like the 4th Circuit in [Rose v. PSA Airlines Inc.], the Sixth Circuit emphasized that the Supreme Court’s earlier decision in Mertens v. Hewitt Associates foreclosed monetary relief under ERISA section 502(a)(3), even when styled as equitable surcharge,” wrote Groom Law Group Senior Counsel Ross McSweeney and Principal Edward Meehan in their analysis. “Citing Rose, the court held that the identity of the defendant did not change the fundamental nature of the remedy: if the relief is measured by compensatory losses rather than traceable assets, it remains legal, not equitable.”

The plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court, submitting their petition on November 14, 2025, but Tuesday’s denial ended their chances of a hearing.

Significance

For retirement plan advisers and sponsors, the Supreme Court’s decision not to rule on Aldridge v. Regions Bank means that the uncertainty about remedies available under ERISA remains unresolved. While the case involved an executive-only top-hat plan, rather than a traditional qualified retirement plan, the dispute touched on broader questions about the scope of equitable relief available to participants bringing ERISA claims.

In April, the court requested a brief from the U.S. solicitor general, which was filed on August 31. In that filing, the government argued that the case was a poor vehicle for resolving the surcharge question because top-hat plans are exempt from many of ERISA’s fiduciary-duty requirements.

The former executives were represented by Holifield & Janich PLLC and the University of Virginia School of Law Supreme Court Litigation Clinic. Regions Bank was represented by Maynard Nexsen P.C. and Latham & Watkins LLP.

Regions Bank declined to comment. Attorneys for the former executives declined to comment, while counsel for Regions Bank did not immediately respond to requests for comment.