The insurer is charged with engaging in a prohibited transaction under ERISA when the fees were charged during a move to a new provider, as well as with self-dealing.
The plaintiffs’ plea to the Supreme Court questions the precedents set by Fifth Third v. Dudenhoeffer—a 2014 high court ruling that significantly raised the pleading standards for ERISA stock-drop lawsuits.
A new complaint filed in Illinois echoes allegations leveled against the insurance company in a complaint from November.
Among other important developments, the Department of Labor has confirmed that one cannot simply write their way out of a functional fiduciary relationship.
The proposed agreement stipulates that the class counsel does not intend to seek recovery of any attorneys’ fees or litigation costs from Community Health Systems (CHS) in connection with the settlement.
The short, pro-defense ruling concludes that the lead plaintiff has not exhausted all potential administrative remedies, making a lawsuit inappropriate at this juncture.
Fiduciaries are accused of failing to switch to and investigate the availability of lower-cost versions of funds offered in the plan.
A federal judge granted Cerner’s motion to dismiss the case then reopened it on the same day, announcing the parties were to discuss a potential settlement.
Details have not yet been published, but a court filing shows the parties have reached an agreement to resolve the long-running case.
It’s anyone’s guess at this early juncture whether the fiduciary breach lawsuit will fizzle, though it includes some familiar allegations from other lawsuits filed by Capozzi Adler.
A federal district court judge noted there are more than 460,000 loans at issue.
The plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on October 23, trying to correct pleading errors after Abbott was dismissed from the lawsuit.
The sense of déjà vu associated with the filing of a finalized fiduciary rule by the Department of Labor is palpable, but one ERISA expert says this version could actually stick—for good—despite the pending change in administration.
Plaintiffs accused the profit sharing plan sponsor of investing too conservatively and applying an inappropriate one-size-fits-all default investment allocation for participants.
The lawsuit accuses plan fiduciaries of failing to benchmark recordkeeping fees and failing to monitor investment fees, among other things.