The lawsuit seems keenly aware of the poor record other such complaints have had in federal court since the crucial Supreme Court ruling in Fifth-Third vs. Dudenhoeffer—focusing its arguments more on the imprudent concentration of employer stock as opposed to inflated valuations.
Wilmington Trust subsidiaries were found not to be fiduciaries, but other claims against the M&T Bank retirement plan committee were moved forward.
Mercer offers recommendations for retirement plan sponsors to search for missing participants.
The appellate court upheld a district court’s denial of defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, concluding that the dispute fell outside the scope of the arbitration agreements because the claims were brought on behalf of the ERISA plans, not the individuals.
The case has already bounced back and forth several times between the district and appellate courts, testing complicated questions about conflicting language in summary plan descriptions and formal plan documents.
The new lawsuit alleges the university engaged in prohibited transactions when it used revenue sharing from plan investments to pay for HR staff salaries and fringe benefits.
Echoing its original ruling, the district court’s second take concludes the lead plaintiff’s underlying allegations do not provide “more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.”
While not disagreeing with a federal court judge's decision, the plaintiff says the judge's findings about certain plan committee members warrants her ordering them to be removed.
The panel concludes that the dispute against the University of Southern California fell outside the scope of the arbitration agreements that the participants signed.
The case arose from Manhattan Ford’s withdrawal from the UAW Local 259 Pension Fund, and an arbitrator’s calculation of about $2.55 million in withdrawal liability for the employer.
Under the paradigm created by the Supreme Court’s ruling in a case known as Fifth-Third v. Dudenhoeffer, plaintiffs continue to have difficulty proving standing in ERISA stock drop cases.
The settlement agreement resolves a civil suit brought by the DOL, alleging Cactus Feeders Inc. ESOP fiduciaries failed to fulfill their obligations under ERISA during a December 2010 stock transaction.
According to the compliant, the defined benefit (DB) plan was required to adhere to Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) funding rules.
Plan sponsors have a fiduciary duty to operate in accordance with the plan document, but an ERISA attorney shares common cases when mistakes are made.
The appellate court found Bank of America did not profit from transferring participants' 401(k) accounts to a cash balance plans and noted that previously the bank entered into a closing agreement with the IRS, paying a $10 million fine and setting up a special-purpose 401(k) plan to restore participants’ accounts.
The new claim in the 403(b) plan lawsuit says the defendants should have protected participant data as plan assets and not allowed TIAA to use it to market its products and services to participants.
A federal judge is allowing the plaintiff one last chance to make more context-specific arguments in her case.
While non-electing church plans are not subject to most ERISA requirements, they are subject to pre-ERISA regulations.
According to the settlement agreement, the university has already made changes to the investment lineup for its 403(b) plans.