“ERISA’s limitations on who employers can exclude from ERISA plans are very narrow,” the decision states. “The law prohibits an employer from denying participation in an ERISA plan on the basis of age or length of service. Other than that, any bases for exclusion from a plan are permissible.”
Plaintiffs in the lawsuit are participants and beneficiaries of the Rainbow Disposal Co., Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan, who seek to restore losses to the plan and to otherwise remedy a complicated series of alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.
After siding with defendants and applying the shorter of two potential limitations periods, the district court decision states clearly that plaintiff’s claims are foreclosed by ERISA's three-year statute of limitations; the detailed decision tackles head-on a complex set of precedent-setting cases, including Tibble vs. Edison.
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 text of the complaint, the action seeks to hold MetLife accountable for the company’s conversion of more than $500 million in annuitized retirement benefits, interest, and unlawful profits over the last 25 years. State regulatory authorities in Massachusetts are also getting involved.
According to the compliant, the defined benefit (DB) plan was required to adhere to Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) funding rules.
While the deadline had already technically passed for the DOL to appeal the circuit court ruling vacating its fiduciary rule reforms, this highly anticipated move by the court is truly the end of an era.
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.
Plan sponsors have a duty to alert and inform participants of any data changes, and ensure they are receiving the right education on it.
Panelists discussed recent trends in fees and how providers can keep plan sponsors and participants up to date.
Participant advice has highly progressed in the latest years, with the introduction of mobile technology and advanced systems, but how will it change under the new fiduciary rule vacate?
When thinking about fiduciary support services and outsourcing, really the important considerations should be about process and time management, more than fiduciary risk transfer.
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.
In a detailed ruling, the Deutsche Bank defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted with respect to certain prohibited transaction claims, but denied with respect to other breach of fiduciary duty claims.