The plaintiff argues the briefs filed in support of the University of Pennsylvania provide the university an argument word-count advantage and seek to inject irrelevant issues that are not before the court.
A federal appellate court affirmed a lower court decision that a change to Northern Trust's DB plan benefit formula does not violate ERISA or the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).
Former committee members—who were not members at the time the complaint was filed—filed motions to remove themselves as defendants in the case; some of the motions were granted, but a couple were denied.
The lawsuit brought by a participant in a Washington University retirement plan challenges TIAA's use of collateral in its loan process and the provider's retention of some interest on the collateral.
The lawsuit alleges Yale defendants acted imprudently with regard to recordkeeping and investment fees for the plan.
In its motion, NYU asks that a federal district court judge issue an order “precluding from trial … any testimony, evidence, or arguments concerning claims that were previously dismissed by the court in its August 25, 2017, opinion.”
U.S. District Judge John A. Ross noted in his order that the arguments the defendants advance in support of dismissal are virtually identical to those raised in their original motion which was rejected by the court and, absent a new argument, he is led to the same conclusion not to dismiss the suit.
The lawsuit contends the plan’s holdings of the parent company's common stock should have been liquidated on or shortly after the date Gannett was separated from its parent.
The plaintiffs' showing that the CVS retirement plan's stable value fund departed from a study of other stable value funds' investments did not support a plausible claim that such decision-making was imprudent, the appellate court ruled.
After the plaintiff’s employment at Siemens concluded, Siemens sold one of its business divisions to Sivantos, Inc., and as part of the sale, Siemens transferred to Sivantos the obligation to pay the plaintiff’s benefits.
Northrop was found not to be a fiduciary with respect to certain acts alleged against it; however, it did not escape the failure to monitor fiduciaries complaint.
However, a federal judge change the class definition for the imprudent investment claims because class representatives were not all invested in the funds challenged.
In the case, the high court is asked whether an Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) claimant is barred from alleging a claim for breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA section 502(a)(3) whenever that claimant also has the opportunity to allege a claim for benefits under ERISA section 502(a)(1)(B).
Franklin Templeton's lawyers argued that while a Supreme Court ruling allowed the plaintiff to pursue an individual claim, he signed a waiver to not pursue class action lawsuits upon his severance of employment.
In a dense dismissal decision, the district court offers a reminder of the exacting pleading standards of ERISA and statues of limitations before roundly rejecting the plaintiff's allegations for failing to state an actionable claim.
A federal district court judge has dismissed the university’s motion for reconsideration of its previous motion to dismiss, while simultaneously granting a motion to stay the litigation process as a parallel case makes its way to the controlling 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Four of twelve class representatives say the $75 million J.P. Morgan agreed to pay is not enough.