Both the U.S. Solicitor and the Pension Rights Center argue that current funded status of a defined benefit (DB) plan is not a proper measure for whether the participants have a right to sue for breaches of fiduciary duties and prohibited transactions under ERISA.
Safeway and Aon Hewitt Investment Consulting will pay a combined $8.5 million to settle two lawsuits accusing them of causing excessive fees in Safeway's 401(k) plan.
The attorneys argue that the CalSavers program goes against ERISA's intent for a voluntary benefits offering and a nationally uniform plan administration structure.
Trial was to begin on the case September 16.
“The plaintiffs’ lawyer playbook is the same,” says Brian Netter of Mayer Brown. “First, survive a motion to dismiss, and then subject the defendant to a very expensive discovery process. It creates incentive to enter into a sizable settlement.”
The plaintiffs in the ERISA lawsuit say they intend to seek injunctive relief preventing MIT from hiring vendors for its retirement plan that are donors or accepting donations from existing vendors to the plan.
The move by Greystar comes after the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling that Schwab could enforce its retirement plan’s arbitration clause requiring participants to file individual claims and to waive class-action claims.
A District Court has affirmed most of the recommendations made by a Magistrate Judge, who previously issued a memorandum concluding the ERISA fiduciary breach case should proceed.
The complaint said Atrium has never satisfied the Federal law definition of a government of a state, a government of a political subdivision, or an agency or instrumentality of such and, therefore, its benefit plans do not qualify as ERISA-exempt governmental plans.
Plaintiffs says defendants failed to properly monitor and control the plan’s expenses, and allowed the plan to become one of the most expensive “jumbo” 401(k) plans in the country.
However, a U.S. District Judge affirmed a motion to dismiss a claim alleging a prohibited transaction between MIT and Fidelity Investments.
In a brief of amici curiae filed with the U.S. Supreme Court, they argue that an appellate court decision undermines the value of retirement plan disclosures and should be reversed.
A district court granted summary judgment to OSF Healthcare System, but the 7th Circuit found there are genuine issues of material law that warrant more discovery in the case.
The lawsuit accuses the retirement plan committee of CHS/Community Health Systems, Inc. Retirement Savings Plan and Principal defendants of imprudent management of the plan and its investments.
Claims for non-ERISA NQDC plans may be brought under state-contract law, but a federal appeals court found Safelite's plan was an ERISA plan, so state-law claims were preempted.
Among other things, a federal judge found Transamerica Asset Management’s substitution of its sub-advisers is not a concrete, obvious explanation for the poor performance of the challenged funds.
A federal district court judge explained how the plaintiff actually benefited after the stock shares were purchased, so she suffered no harm.
A three-judge panel concluded that a precedent-setting appellate decision which held that ERISA claims are not arbitrable is “no longer good law” in light of interim Supreme Court rulings.
Fiduciaries were ordered to restore $6,502,500 to the plan for an overpriced purchase.