The attorneys argue that the CalSavers program goes against ERISA's intent for a voluntary benefits offering and a nationally uniform plan administration structure.
Trial was to begin on the case September 16.
“The plaintiffs’ lawyer playbook is the same,” says Brian Netter of Mayer Brown. “First, survive a motion to dismiss, and then subject the defendant to a very expensive discovery process. It creates incentive to enter into a sizable settlement.”
The plaintiffs in the ERISA lawsuit say they intend to seek injunctive relief preventing MIT from hiring vendors for its retirement plan that are donors or accepting donations from existing vendors to the plan.
The move by Greystar comes after the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling that Schwab could enforce its retirement plan’s arbitration clause requiring participants to file individual claims and to waive class-action claims.
A District Court has affirmed most of the recommendations made by a Magistrate Judge, who previously issued a memorandum concluding the ERISA fiduciary breach case should proceed.
The complaint said Atrium has never satisfied the Federal law definition of a government of a state, a government of a political subdivision, or an agency or instrumentality of such and, therefore, its benefit plans do not qualify as ERISA-exempt governmental plans.
Plaintiffs says defendants failed to properly monitor and control the plan’s expenses, and allowed the plan to become one of the most expensive “jumbo” 401(k) plans in the country.
A district court granted summary judgment to OSF Healthcare System, but the 7th Circuit found there are genuine issues of material law that warrant more discovery in the case.
A three-judge panel concluded that a precedent-setting appellate decision which held that ERISA claims are not arbitrable is “no longer good law” in light of interim Supreme Court rulings.
Retirement plan fiduciaries at Intel are accused of exposing investors to bets on speculative areas of the markets.
As a general rule, “Doe pleading” is disfavored in federal court. However, the practice is not entirely forbidden, particularly where the identities of alleged defendants are unknown.
Among other things, a federal court judge found the director of benefits at Kaleida Health and the retirement plan committee of its 403(b) and 401(k) plans were fiduciaries.
John Hopkins University will settle a long-standing ERISA lawsuit—one of a number of virtually identical cases filed in district courts across the country by Schlichter, Bogard and Denton.
Using other court decisions, including one from the Supreme Court, the medical center's plan was found to fall under the "church plan" definition in ERISA.
A federal court has rejected the argument that defendants were aware that their predecessor fiduciaries had breached their duties in selecting affiliated funds and thus that they breached their own duties by failing to take adequate steps to remedy the original alleged breaches.
Among other elements, Title IV of ERISA is used to determine liability for PBGC termination premiums.
The Supreme Court will weigh in on the question of whether an adequately funded pension that is not in immediate danger of insolvency could have wronged participants and breached ERISA in the selection of poorly performing investments offered by an affiliate company.