The detailed ruling comes after Schwab defendants moved to dismiss in part the plaintiff’s second amended complaint.
Plaintiffs allege plan fiduciaries should have known the company’s stock price was artificially inflated—and that fiduciaries breached their duties of prudence and loyalty by continuing to offer J&J stock in the retirement plan.
The complaint alleges that Stadion Money Management and Mutual of Omaha abused their managed account arrangement by putting their own interests ahead of participants’.
The Department of Labor's Employee Benefit Security Administration (EBSA) also alleged in a lawsuit that fiduciaries to two retirement plans failed to administer the plans, leaving participants unable to gain information about their funds or gain access to their plan accounts.
The decision goes into significant detail, but in essence plaintiffs’ approach failed because they relied on bare cost comparisons and statements of industry averages, failing to show any actual fiduciary breach occurred.
The question was included in its petition for writ of certiorari asking the Supreme Court to settle a circuit split about burden of proof in ERISA cases.
Attorneys with Mayer Brown say there has been little consensus or direction from the federal courts (at least so far) as to what exactly constitutes prudent administration of tax-qualified benefit plans; this will remain a challenge in 2019 and beyond.
PLANSPONSOR Magazine has published a 2019 ERISA Plan Compliance Calendar that can help your clients track important due dates and requirements for their qualified plans.
The court officially ended the case by approving a dismissal motion jointly filed by the parties.
Practical answers to technical questions have been added to appropriate locations within ERISApedia.com's Qualified Plan eSource.
In a colorfully worded opinion, the district court judge chides plaintiffs for failing to acknowledge basic facts about the way annuities work and their well-established role in 403(b) plans.
The complaint stems from defendants’ alleged refusal to pay post-termination benefits to the plaintiff—and a sizable similarly situated class of would-be beneficiaries—pursuant to terms and definitions in plan documents.
The decision against Mutual of Omaha’s preliminary motions to dismiss a self-dealing lawsuit underscores the way district court judges tend to allow for discovery in ERISA matters, given the complex and often secretive nature of the facts and circumstances in question.
Similar to a lawsuit the firm settled a few years ago, a newly filed district court complaint says Transamerica “saddled its defined contribution plan participants with substandard investment portfolios that were managed by an affiliate.”
ERISA lawsuits very often lead to settlements or dismissals, but 2018 brought a series of important and potentially precedent-setting decisions in both district and appellate courts.
The judge approved just one part of General Electric’s motion to dismiss an ERISA lawsuit alleging self-dealing, allowing seven counts to proceed to discovery.
The appellate panel concluded that disputes of material fact exist as to the timing of the plaintiff’s actual knowledge of the alleged fiduciary breach, precluding summary judgment for untimely filing; after a detailed discussion of ERISA requirements, the case is remanded for further district court proceedings.