Since 2011. An occasional commonplacing of the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal.
Neither an authoritative statement of the law nor legal advice. Quick work.
Despite the issue raised as to whether the plan's administrator complied with the procedures, deferential review of coverage decisions as arbitrary and capricious is appropriate, though the outcome would be the same here absent deference, under de novo review.
Administrator's second medical opinion disregarding independent grounds for coverage was arbitrary and capricious.
Fiduciary's purchase of retail class shares rather than institutional class shares in 63 of 103 funds states an ERISA claim under duty of prudence. The subsequent finding of prudent revenue sharing doesn't make the error harmless. Deft has burden to establish that the losses didn't flow from the imprudent acts.
Refusal of discretionary leave to amend under Rule 16 was an abuse of discretion, since the scheduling order only listed the date beyond which amendments of right would not be timely. Denial of leave to amend prejudiced post-trial motions.
Lack of timely response to motion to strike jury trial demand was sufficient waiver.
Trial court's use of written direct testimony is not per se an abuse of discretion.
No clear error in rejeciton of claim that the Plan should have consolidated its record-keeping, given the testimony on IT difficulties.
No clear error in discrediting expert testimony on fund benchmarking.
Judge was not disqualified from presiding by the implicaitons of the fact that she left the bench six months later to re-join a law firm whose chairman, her mentor, is on the University's Board of Trustees.
DISSENT IN PART:
Since retail class share enable revenue sharing to offset recordkeeping costs, no error in dismissal of claim of breach of duty of prudence in opting for retail rather than institutional class shares; the fiduciary followed a sufficiently deliberative process. Scheduling order setting date beyond which pleadings can;t be amended without leave is sufficient to indicate that in the normal course, no pleadings may be amended.
Municipality that contracts with outside corporations isn't liable under ERISA for fund contributions, as contributions aren't required in the contracts or in the Fund's governing documents. Munciplaity's requirement that contractors hire according to municipality's seniority lists and follow municipality's wage and labor rules constituted neither an ERISA pension agreement or CBA, nor is the munipality a fiduciary or liable due to having participated in prohibited transactions.
Claims were timely filed, as the statute of limitations did not start to run until, taking all favorable inferences, the claimant had actual knowledge of the claim or with reasonable diligence should have discovered the claim.
Allegation that plan documents did not make the effects of annuity disbursement, changes in interest rates, and possible negative effects of switching plans sufficiently clear to the average plan participant states a claim.
Despite being insufficient notice under the statute, Plan documents were not in bad faith, since they attempted to explain, compare and caution, and were multi-modal in nature, making a sufficient good-faith effort to convey the information.
Company's plant to pay employees who stay until the end of a project a bonus is akin to a severance scheme, but does not have the administrative complexity characteristic of an ERISA plan, and is therefore outside the reach of the statute, and of the federal courts.
Employer's contract claim against potential trustee of employee stock benefit plan is remote from the usual ERISA concerns, and therefore not preempted by the statute.
Implied spoken promise subsequent to execution of written contract can be the basis for a promissory estoppel claim.
Integration clause refers only to the time of formation -- when subsequent parties to the contract were substituted in, the integration clause still looked back to the time of initial formation.
A lie about a side issue in the course of a contractual breach is separately actionable as fraud where the lie implicates a broader social duty owed to all individuals.
By conceding valid substitution into the contract for the purposes of the breach claim, the plaintiff is estopped from arguing that the indemnification agreement compelling the payment of legal fees doesn't apply to the defendant. Plain meaning of indemnify encompasses first party claims. Under state law, it wouldn't be specific enough to cover any damages award.
ERISA claim would be foreclosed by res judicata given the court proceedings related to the term of employment, even if the arbitration-ordered release of claims were to be vacated.
Court appropriately considered Plan Manager's contracts with employer in granting dismissal for not stating a claim; no discovery was required to establish authenticity.
Intermediary that compiles a list of investment options from which Plan Managers select fixed options (after selecting the intermediary) is not transformed into a Plan fiduciary by the infrastructure fees assessed to the providers of the investment options, the ability ot modify the array of options open to Plan Managers, or the funds provided by the participation by the Plan Beneficiaries.
Plan's retention of substantial amounts of spun-off business' stock in a single stock fund states a claim against the Administrator's common law duty of prudence.
While allowing the participants to select funds can satisfy the statutory duty of diversification, it does not address common-law prudence.
Liability is possible where a frozen defined contribution plan does not timely divest the single-stock fund.
Dissent:
Participants could allocate their investments. The fact that prudence and diversification are codified separately means that they shouldn't be merged in common-law analysis.
[Again, folks, just my scribbling. This is never legal advice.]