With a recent decision ruling in favor of a Motorola employee, federal
court judges continue refining their approach to handling benefits
award cases involving a conflict of interest by a plan administrator.
The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that a plan
administrator did not abuse its discretion in denying a disability
retirement benefit payment to an employee who died before his payment
application was received.
Anheuser-Busch has been hit with a federal court lawsuit alleging the brewer and a trustee improperly designated an overly risky qualified default investment alternative (QDIA) for participants’ cash proceeds from a stock sale.
U.S. Supreme Court justices have agreed to consider an appeal of a case involving the method used by the Xerox Corp. pension plan to figure out how much to offset a participant’s benefits to properly reflect distributions already taken.
A Texas state district judge approved the start of a claims process for Texans who invested with a Houston company accused of scamming retired teachers, state workers, and others out of more than $20 million.
Faced with pressure to take another look at its February 2009 decision in a widely watched 401(k) excessive fee case, a federal appellate court has turned down the rehearing request but issued an addendum sharply limiting the earlier ruling’s scope on the issue of 404(c) protections.
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois ruled that Motorola Inc. and fiduciaries of its 401(k) plan did not breach their fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) by continuing to offer company stock as an investment option in the plan.
A court dismissed a securities fraud suit accusing executives at health insurance giant Aetna Inc. of making false statements about the company's “disciplined″ pricing strategies to drive up the company's stock price in order to cash in $61 million in stock.
A court ruled that participants in the First American Corp. 401(k) plan cannot be certified as a class for purposes of a suit questioning the appropriateness of maintaining company stock as an investment choice in the plan.