A Maryland business owner will serve one year and one day of imprisonment and pay more than $350,000 in restitution for violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.
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.
Advisers interested in participating are called on to submit info electronically.
The case ascended on appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, where it also flatly failed to meet the high hurdles for proving standing established in Fifth-Third Bank vs. Dudenhoeffer.
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.”
Beyond the nearly $22 million in monetary terms, the settlement agreement includes substantial prospective relief to be provided by Deutsche Bank.
New at this year’s conference, advisers will have the ability to earn their PLANSPONSOR Retirement Professional designation while in attendance, and we are particularly excited for our opening evening speaker, the award-winning comedian and actor Jason Alexander.
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.
An interim ruling in the fiduciary breach case of Barrett vs. Pioneer Natural Resources, in which elements of the defendants’ motion to oppose class certification failed at the same time the lead plaintiff failed to prove standing, highlights the complex nature of retirement plan lawsuits.
The letter also asks that until guidance is provided, for the DOL to stop issuing letters that allege an employer has committed a breach of fiduciary duty with respect to the practices utilized to locate missing retirement plan participants.
In this case, the alleged knowledge of an artificially high stock price was rooted in the fact that the company had not disclosed that employees of its foreign subsidiaries had violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1997 by paying bribes to foreign government officials.
Given a second chance to argue their case, participants in a Wells Fargo retirement plan have again failed to meet the steep pleading standards set out by the influential Supreme Court decision known as Fifth Third vs. Dudenhoeffer.