ERISA Obligations Related to Promised Pension and Health Benefits
|
|
- Jack Mathews
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Chapter 4 Cite as 22 Energy & Min. L. Inst. ch. 4 (2002) ERISA Obligations Related to Promised Pension and Health Benefits Ronald E. Meisburg Meikka A. Cutlip Heenan, Althen & Roles, LLP Washington, D.C. Allison S. Williams Heenan, Althen & Roles, LLP Charleston, WV Synopsis Introduction Summary of Pertinent ERISA Provisions ERISA Fiduciary Duties When Is an Employer also an ERISA Fiduciary? When Do Health Care Benefits Vest Under the Terms of an ERISA Plan? What If the Employer Creates a New Employee Welfare Plan? When Is There a Duty to Disclose Future Changes to a Benefits Plan? What If the Claim for Retiree Medical Benefits Is Based on a Plan Adopted Prior to ERISA? Conclusion Introduction. The Employee Retirement Income Security Act 1 (ERISA) was enacted to provide standards related to the formation, funding, and administration of employee benefit plans. For the most part, ERISA preempts state laws and any causes of action arising under state law that relate to employee benefit plans. There has been, however, a veritable explosion of federal court litigation and legal developments under ERISA since it was signed into law in One of the most frequently litigated issues involves alleged promises by employers to provide lifetime health care benefits to employees who 1 29 U.S.C et seq.
2 4.02 ENERGY & MINERAL LAW INSTITUTE retire (and their dependents). Employers typically sponsor several different types of employee benefit plans. These benefits may include retiree pension and health benefit plans. In administering such plans, employers occupy the role of a fiduciary under ERISA. When an employer misapprehends its status as a fiduciary, or fails to conform its conduct to its fiduciary obligations, then it may face substantial liability for breach of fiduciary duty to the beneficiaries. This article will focus on selected cases presenting various theories under which retirees have pursued claims for health benefits and the legal issues presented by and disposition of those claims Summary of Pertinent ERISA Provisions. In order to better comprehend the basis for such claims, it is necessary to be aware of some of the key provisions of ERISA and its implementing of regulations. 2 There are two general types of employee benefit plans governed by this statute pension benefit plans and welfare benefit plans: ERISA distinguishes between pension plans and welfare plans. A pension plan provides retirement income to employees or results in a deferral of income by employees for periods extending to the termination of... employment or beyond U.S.C. 1002(2). Welfare plans, in contrast, include plans established or... maintained for the purpose of providing... medical, surgical, or hospital care or benefits.... Id. 1002(1). 3 ERISA plans are required to be in writing and must be available to beneficiaries for review upon request. 4 In addition, a summary of the ERISA plan, known as a Summary Plan Description (SPD), must be distributed to each plan participant. 5 ERISA requires that an SPD shall be sufficiently accurate and comprehensive to reasonably apprise such participants and beneficiaries of their rights and obligations under the 2 Id. 3 Sprague v. General Motors Corp., 133 F.3d 388, 400 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 524 U.S. 923 (1998) U.S.C. 1102(a). 5 Id. 98
3 ERISA OBLIGATIONS 4.03 plan. 6 The SPD must also explain in a manner calculated to be understood by the average plan participant.... the circumstances which may result in disqualification, ineligibility, or denial or loss of benefits. 7 A summary plan description must not have the effect [of] misleading, misinforming or failing to inform participants and beneficiaries. 8 ERISA s compliance obligations apply to any person determined to be a fiduciary of an ERISA plan. Under ERISA, the term fiduciary is defined as: [A] person... with respect to a plan to the extent (i) he exercises any discretionary authority or discretionary control respecting management of such plan or exercises any authority or control respecting management or disposition of its assets, (ii) he renders investment advice for a fee or other compensation, direct or indirect, with respect to any moneys or other property of such plan, or has any authority or responsibility to do so, or (iii) he has any discretionary authority or discretionary responsibility in the administration of such plan ERISA Fiduciary Duties. Among other duties imposed on fiduciaries is that of loyalty, i.e., acting solely in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries of the plan. 10 An ERISA fiduciary also has the obligation to provide accurate and timely information to beneficiaries of ERISA covered benefit plans. 11 In addition, though not specifically enumerated in ERISA s statutory text as fiduciary duties, a number of obligations have been placed on fiduciaries by the courts based on the language of ERISA. Among them is the duty to communicate truthfully with participants and beneficiaries 6 29 U.S.C. 1022(a). 7 Id C.F.R (b) U.S.C. 1002(21)(A). 10 Id. 1104(a)(1). 11 See id
4 4.03 ENERGY & MINERAL LAW INSTITUTE and to disclose certain facts that, if known, could have an effect on the participant s decisions relating to the provision of future plan benefits to participants. 12 Individual plaintiffs have the right to seek equitable relief for a breach of fiduciary duty under 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(3). 13 In order to bring a successful breach of fiduciary duty claim, a plaintiff must show the following: 1. That the employer s representative was acting in a fiduciary capacity when making the challenged misrepresentations; 2. That these statements by the employer constituted material misrepresentations; and 3. That plan participants relied on these misrepresentations to their detriment. Generally, ERISA cases brought by beneficiaries alleging a breach of fiduciary duty by an employer make a number of allegations: (1) that the plaintiffs employer acted as a fiduciary when offering advice or information about a plan s benefit terms and about the company s future intentions with regard to the plan; (2) that the employer or its agents, acting in a fiduciary capacity, breached their fiduciary duty by either making affirmative material misrepresentations about the company s intentions or by knowingly failing to clarify the employee s misunderstanding of the plan s terms; and (3) that, as a result, the plan failed to deliver promised benefits to plan participants. Most of the cases discussed in this chapter involve some variation on the following threshold questions: Is the employer s representative in this situation acting as a fiduciary? If so, is there a duty under ERISA to disclose the employer s contemplated changes to the plan? 12 See, e.g., Varity Corp. v. Howe, 516 U.S. 489 (1996). 13 See id. at 507; McMunn v. Pirelli Tire, LLC, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14386, at *55 (D. Conn. July 19, 2001). 100
5 ERISA OBLIGATIONS 4.04 Does any such duty to disclose apply to all employees or does it only apply upon specific inquiry by an individual employee? If there is a duty to disclose, did the employer knowingly fail to clarify what it knew to be a currently held misunderstanding by its employees? Alternatively, did the representative make a material misrepresentation on the part of the employer with regard to the terms of the plan or the employer s intentions regarding the plan? Factually, the cases tend to center around circumstances where there is ambiguity in the language of either the benefits plan or the Summary Plan Description (SPD), where the benefits plan language and the SPD language are facially conflicting or inconsistent, or where a plan fiduciary has breached its fiduciary duties by either actively misleading or failing to disclose information to the beneficiaries of the plan When Is an Employer Also an ERISA Fiduciary? In Varity Corp. v. Howe, 14 the U.S. Supreme Court addressed a number of issues, including the issue of when an employer who sponsors or offers an ERISA benefit plan to its business subsidiary also becomes an ERISA fiduciary with respect to that plan. In Varity, a parent corporation (Varity) created a subsidiary (Massey Combines), to which it transferred its less financially viable business lines of another subsidiary (Massey-Ferguson). Massey Combines also assumed Massey-Ferguson s liability to provide health care and other non-pension benefits to various Massey-Ferguson employees and retirees. Employees transferred voluntarily to Massey Combines, having been induced by misleading and false statements of Varity and Massey-Ferguson representatives that Massey Combines was financially secure. 14 Varity Corp. v. Howe, 516 U.S. 489 (1996). 101
6 4.04 ENERGY & MINERAL LAW INSTITUTE When Massey Combines went into receivership two years later, its employees and retirees lost their benefits. Massey Combines employees and retirees sued Varity and Massey-Ferguson seeking benefits they would have received had they remained under Massey-Ferguson s plan. The plaintiffs sued under Section 502(a)(3) of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(3), which provides that a civil action may be brought: by a participant, beneficiary or fiduciary (A) to enjoin any act or practice which violates any provision of this subchapter or the terms of the plan, or (B) to obtain other appropriate equitable relief (i) to redress such violations or (ii) to enforce any provisions of this title or the terms of the plan. 15 Essentially, plaintiffs claimed that Varity and Massey-Ferguson were acting not only as employers, but as ERISA fiduciaries, when they induced the plaintiffs to join Massey Combines. The plaintiffs prevailed in the lower federal courts and the Supreme Court granted certiorari on the following issues: 1. Was Varity/Massey-Ferguson acting as a fiduciary or as an employer in its statements to employees? 2. If it were acting as a fiduciary, did Varity/Massey-Ferguson breach its fiduciary duties under ERISA? 3. Did Section 502(c)(3), 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(c)(3) allow plaintiffs to sue for relief for themselves as opposed to an ERISA plan? 16 The Supreme Court held that Varity/Massey-Ferguson was acting in a fiduciary capacity, and not merely as an employer, in its communications with the plaintiffs. The statements of Varity/Massey Ferguson about the U.S.C. 1132(a)(3). 16 The court held that plaintiffs were entitled to sue under ERISA 502(a)(3), 29 U.S.C. 1132(a)(3) for individual relief, as opposed to seeking relief solely for the plan. Section 502(a)(3), 29 U.S.C. 1132(a)(3) is a catchall provision to allow participants to obtain appropriate relief from all ERISA Title I violations. 102
7 ERISA OBLIGATIONS 4.04 financial soundness of Massey Combines were intentionally closely linked with statements about the employee benefits to be offered by Massey Combines and were intended to convey the false impression that those benefits were secure. Varity intentionally connected its statements... so that its intended communication about the security of benefits was rendered misleading.... [W]e hold that making intentional representations about the future of plan benefits in that context is an act of plan administration. 17 Conveying information about the likely future of plan benefits is an appropriate fiduciary administrative function under ERISA. Such communications were made by persons in Varity/Massey-Ferguson who had authority to make such statements. Plaintiffs therefore reasonably relied on such statements as being communicated to them by Varity/ Massey-Ferguson in both its employer and fiduciary capacities. Having decided that Varity/Massey-Ferguson was acting in a fiduciary capacity, the Court then held that Varity/Massey-Ferguson violated its fiduciary duties under ERISA: ERISA requires a fiduciary to discharge his duties... solely in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries. To participate knowingly and significantly in deceiving a plan s beneficiaries in order to save the employer money at the beneficiaries expense is not to act solely in the interest of participants and beneficiaries. On its face, the language of 502(a)(3), 29 U.S.C. 1132(a)(3) is broad enough to allow individual relief for breach of a fiduciary obligation. Further, allowing plaintiffs to seek individual relief is consistent with other provisions of ERISA (e.g., 502(l), 29 U.S.C. 1132(l), which calculates certain civil penalties on the basis of sums ordered by a court to be paid by such fiduciary... to a plan or its participants and beneficiaries under materially identical language of 502(c)(5), 29 U.S.C. 1132(c)(5) (authorizing Secretary of Labor to seek such relief)). If plaintiffs could not sue under 502(c)(5), 29 U.S.C. 1132(c)(5), they would be without a remedy, since ERISA generally preempts any analogous state cause of action. We are not aware of any ERISA-related purpose that denial of a remedy would serve. 516 U.S. at U.S. at 505 (citation omitted). 103
8 4.05 ENERGY & MINERAL LAW INSTITUTE As other courts have held, [l]ying is inconsistent with the duty of loyalty owed by all fiduciaries and codified in section 404(a)(1) of ERISA. 18 In Varity, the Court specifically reserved ruling on the issue of whether ERISA fiduciaries have any fiduciary duty to disclose truthful information on their own initiative, or in response to employee inquiries. 19 Further, Varity did not address the situation where the breach of fiduciary duty arises from a good faith difference in interpretation of plan language because of latent ambiguities therein, or because of conflicts or inconsistencies between a plan document and the Summary Plan Description (SPD). However, these issues have been addressed in a growing body of case law by the lower federal courts When Do Health Care Benefits Vest Under the Terms of an ERISA Plan? The first claim typically made by plan participants is that their benefits vested under the terms of the plan and the employer s failure to provide those benefits results in a breach of ERISA. 20 Under ERISA, however, employee welfare plans unlike pension plans are not required to vest. Absent any promise within the plan that creates a legally vested interest in health care benefits, the employer is free to amend or terminate them unilaterally at any time. That said, nothing within the terms of ERISA specifically prohibits an employer from vesting its employee health benefits. 21 Therefore, if the employer promises to provide vested medical benefits, such a promise will be enforced by ERISA as a plan term Id. at 506 (citations omitted). 19 Id U.S.C (improper withholding of benefits due participants). 21 Schonholz v. Long Island Jewish Med. Ctr., 87 F.3d 72, 77 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S (1996). 22 See id., American Fed n of Grain Millers v. Int l Multifoods Corp., 116 F.3d 976, 980 (2d Cir. 1997). 104
9 ERISA OBLIGATIONS 4.05 In International Union, UAW v. Skinner Engine Co., 23 the plaintiffs claimed that they were told habitually and consistently over a course of some 20 years... that lifetime postretirement medical and life insurance benefits would be provided, 24 such that both hourly and management employees believed this to be true. The contract at issue was a series of collective bargaining agreements, each of which contained language promising, in various forms, that the company will continue to provide certain health care benefits and that life insurance shall remain at a given amount. 25 Each agreement also contained a provision limiting the term of the agreement and its clauses. In rejecting this contract interpretation claim, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit expressly disapproved the position taken by some circuit courts that there is a presumption, known as the Yard-Man inference, that the company and the employees intended for health care benefits to continue for life, even beyond the term of the collective bargaining agreement initially creating the benefit plan. 26 The court in Skinner recognized that if the parties members had indeed intended to vest health care benefits, as presumed under Yard-Man, they could simply have insisted on including that as a requirement in their bargaining negotiations. Instead, the court adopted the reasoning of the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which found that it is not at all inconsistent with labor policy to require plaintiffs to prove their case without the aid of gratuitous inferences. 27 The Third Circuit determined that the employer was not liable as a plan representative where there was no evidence that it had ever given an 23 International Union, UAW v. Skinner Engine Co., 188 F.3d 130 (3d Cir. 1999). 24 Id. at Id. at Collective bargaining agreements, controlled by federal law, are generally interpreted through traditional rules of contract law where such rules are not inconsistent with applicable federal labor law. See id. at Id. at 140; see also International Union, UAW v. Yard-Man, Inc., 716 F.2d 1476 (6th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S (1984) F.3d at 141(quoting Anderson v. Alpha Portland Indus., Inc., 836 F.2d 1512, 1517 (8th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S (1989)). 105
10 4.05 ENERGY & MINERAL LAW INSTITUTE employee a material misrepresentation about the duration of the plan s benefits, or that it had ever knowingly failed to correct employees mistaken assumption about the terms of the plan. Noting that a decision permitting a beneficiary to bring a successful claim for breach of fiduciary duty would not weaken the bar against using informal communications as a way to amend a formal ERISA plan, the court in Skinner went on to reject the plaintiffs claim that their employer was under some obligation to inform them that their health care benefits could change. The plaintiffs also based their breach of contract claim on the use of the terms will continue and shall remain throughout plan documents. The plaintiffs essentially argued that the language was an indication of the company s intent to vest its retirees health care benefits. The Skinner court rejected the argument, stating as follows: It cannot be said that the phrases clearly and expressly indicate vesting since there is simply no durational language to qualify these phrases. That is, the CBAs do not state that retiree benefits will continue for the life of the retiree, or that they shall remain unalterable for the life of the retiree. An equally reasonable interpretation is that the benefits will continue until the CBA expires, or that they shall remain... until the CBA expires. Indeed, the latter interpretation appears to be the more reasonable in light of the durational provisions in all of the CBAs. 28 Finally, the Skinner court rejected the plaintiffs claim that informal communications with representatives of the plan should be held as an informal amendment to the ERISA plan documents. 29 In support of their claim, plaintiffs offered the testimony of a former chief operating officer for the company, in which he stated his belief, based on actual past practices and conditions of negotiations, that the collective bargaining agreements created a vested right to health care benefits. 30 Nevertheless, F.3d at See id. at Id. at
11 ERISA OBLIGATIONS 4.05 the Third Circuit rejected this claim on the basis of the strong precedent which precludes informal amendments to ERISA plan benefit plans. 31 In addition, the court noted with approval a Seventh Circuit case (in which the testimony of union employees was rejected as subjective and self-serving ) for the proposition that the testimonies of union members as to their understanding or belief of the duration of their retirement benefits cannot as a matter of law create an ambiguity in this case. 32 Similarly, the retirees in American Fed n of Grain Millers v. Int l Multifoods Corp. 33 alleged that their employer had promised lifetime medical benefits through expired collective bargaining agreements and under the terms of the ERISA plan. The terms of the collective bargaining agreements required the company to provide its retirees with medical insurance at no cost to the retirees. The company provided the coverage during the effective dates of the collective bargaining agreements. After the agreements expired, the company did not amend its ERISA plan and continued to provide the benefits at no cost to the retirees. However, in 1992, the company amended its ERISA plan, fixing the premium it would pay at its current rate, plus an annual increase of either four percent or the percentage increase in the U.S. Medical Consumer Price Index, whichever was lower. Thus, under the amendment, if premiums increased at a rate faster than the lower of the two percentages, the retirees had to pay the difference in order to maintain medical coverage. The retirees claimed that the amendment violated the collective bargaining agreements and ERISA. 34 The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reiterated the general rule that an employer is generally free to modify or terminate any retiree medical benefits that were provided pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement after the expiration of the agreement. Likewise, an employer 31 Id. at Id. (citing Murphy v. Keystone Steel & Wire Co., 61 F.3d 560, 565 (7 th Cir. 1995)). 33 American Fed n of Grain Millers v. Int l Multifoods Corp., 116 F.3d 976 (2d Cir. 1997). 34 See id. at
12 4.05 ENERGY & MINERAL LAW INSTITUTE may amend or terminate a plan providing retiree welfare benefits so long as they are not vested. Finding, however, that it would enforce promises of vested benefits, the Second Circuit had to examine the particular documents at issue in the case. 35 In examining the specific documents at issue in the case, the Second Circuit found that the collective bargaining agreements stated that retiree medical benefits could not be reduced during the term of this Agreement. 36 Thus, the promise to provide the benefits expired at the same time as the collective bargaining agreements. 37 The retirees further claimed that the benefits had vested under the ERISA plan. Upon examination of the plan, the court in International Multifoods found the plan provided that it could be amended at any time, without the consent of the insured Employees or any other person having a beneficial interest in it. 38 The retirees then claimed, however, that the Summary Plan Description (SPD) could be reasonably interpreted as promising vested benefits. Under Second Circuit law, the SPD controls when there are inconsistencies between the plan and the SPD. Therefore, the International Multifoods court was required to examine whether the Summary Plan Description promised benefits contrary to the plan. 39 Upon examination, the Second Circuit found the Summary Plan Description stated that the the entire cost of the coverage is paid by Multifoods 40 and, in a subsequent location, stated PLAN COSTS Paid by Employer. 41 The Second Circuit concluded that these statements simply indicated who would pay the costs of the plan at the time the SPD was published and that the statements could not reasonably be interpreted as promising vested benefits. Therefore, in International Multifoods, the 35 See id. at Id. at Id. 38 Id. at See id. 40 Id. 41 Id. 108
13 ERISA OBLIGATIONS 4.06 Second Circuit determined that the retirees had not been promised lifetime medical benefits What If the Employer Creates a New Employee Welfare Plan? In DeBoard v. Sunshine Mining & Ref. Co., 43 the Tenth Circuit found that the employer had promised health insurance benefits to a specific group of retirees through the creation of a new employee welfare plan. In DeBoard, the employer (Woods) had sent letters promising lifetime health insurance benefits to employees as an inducement for participating in a voluntary early retirement program. Several years later, the employer terminated the coverage. The Tenth Circuit decided that the employer could not revoke its promise to provide medical insurance to that specific group of retirees. The Tenth Circuit s decision, however, rested on the court s conclusions that the letters satisfied the minimum requirements for establishing an ERISA plan and that the employer had intended to create a new employee welfare benefit plan for a specific group of employees, i.e., those who agreed to participate in the early retirement plan. Even though the employer had provided the letters for informational purposes only, the Tenth Circuit determined: Not only did the letter specify a funding mechanism for the plan (i.e., that Woods would pay the health insurance premiums), they also allocated ongoing operational and administrative responsibilities to the employer. In particular, Woods was required under the plan to regularly pay the health, dental, and life insurance premiums for plaintiffs, and was further required to allocate company resources to do so.... In addition to the periodic demands on Woods assets, the plan also required Woods to keep track of when each retiree died because the plan expressly provided for more limited survival benefits for surviving spouses 42 See id. 43 DeBoard v. Sunshine Mining & Ref. Co., 208 F.3d 1228 (10th Cir. 2000). 109
14 4.07 ENERGY & MINERAL LAW INSTITUTE of retirees. Aside from establishing an administrative scheme, the documents sufficiently described the intended benefits (lifetime health insurance benefits, etc.), the intended class of beneficiaries (persons participating in the voluntary early retirement subsidy), and the procedures for receiving benefits. Finally, in light of all the surrounding facts and circumstances, a reasonable employee would [have] perceived an ongoing commitment by the employer to provide employee benefits. 44 Therefore, while the Tenth Circuit upheld the promise of lifetime medical benefits to the retirees, it did so only because the employer had created a new, separate ERISA plan to cover these employees When Is There a Duty to Disclose Future Changes to a Benefits Plan? In Sprague v. General Motors Corp., 45 the Sixth Circuit held that an employer has no obligation to forecast the future. In Sprague, roughly half of the plaintiffs were early retirees who were offered, and accepted, an early retirement package from General Motors (GM), their employer. When GM later altered the benefits provided, the early retirees sued under seven different theories, among them, that GM had breached its fiduciary duty to them and that GM had breached the contract granting them benefits. 46 With regard to the breach of fiduciary duty, the court noted that most, but not all, of the Summary Plan Descriptions (SPDs) unambiguously reserved GM s right to amend or alter the terms of the plan and, more importantly, that the plan documents themselves clearly reserved this right. 47 The court rejected the plaintiffs argument that internal inconsistencies within the Summary Plan Description created an ambiguity that must be resolved through the use of extrinsic evidence. 48 For 44 Id. at (internal citations omitted). 45 Sprague v. General Motors Corp., 133 F.3d 388 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 524 U.S. 923 (1998). 46 Id. at Id. at Id. 110
15 ERISA OBLIGATIONS 4.07 example, plaintiffs argued that the summaries indicated that health care would be provided by the company at no cost to the participants for [their] lifetime : We have rejected this argument in the past, and we reject it again now. We see no ambiguity in a summary plan description that tells participants both that the terms of the current plan entitle them to health insurance at no cost throughout retirement and that the terms of the current plan are subject to change. 49 The decision not to include a statement about the amendment or termination of benefits in the SPD does not trump the clear plan statement reserving that right. 50 Further, ERISA does not require employers to include an express statement in the plan documents that health care benefits do not vest. 51 Although the facts of Sprague bear a passing similarity to those of the Varity case, in which the employer actively misled its employees in order to induce them into transferring their retirement benefits rights into a newly created subsidiary that Varity knew would likely fail, the Sprague court distinguished the two situations. There was no evidence that GM had actively misled its employees. Instead, it had instructed them that, under the terms of the then-current plan, benefits would continue for their lifetimes at GM s expense: GM s failure, if it may properly be called such, amounted to this: the company did not tell the early retirees at every possible opportunity that which it had told them many times before namely, that the terms of the plan were subject to change. There is, in our view, a world of difference between the employer s deliberate misleading of employees in Varity Corp. and GM s failure to begin every communication to plan participants with a caveat Id. 50 Id. 51 Id. at Id. at
16 4.07 ENERGY & MINERAL LAW INSTITUTE In sum, the Sixth Circuit, through the Sprague decision and its progeny, has upheld the position that any oral assurances of free life-time health benefits are not effective to change the written plan documents, which specifically reserve the right to terminate suspend, withdraw, amend, or modify the Plan in whole or in part at any time. 53 In the frequently cited opinion of In Re: Unisys Corp., 54 the Third Circuit held that equitable relief is available under 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(3)(B) where the plaintiffs successfully show a breach of fiduciary duty. 55 In the Unisys Corp. case, the plaintiffs had brought separate claims for breach of contract, equitable estoppel, and breach of fiduciary duty, after the company made a dramatic change to their post-retirement benefits by reducing benefits and premium payments that were offered under prior plans. The company knew that employees were accelerating their retirement plans because of their belief that by doing so they could lock-in, or vest, their health care benefits. Further, not only did the company fail to mention the reservation of rights clause in response to the specific inquiries of individual plaintiffs (about whether their benefit rights would continue), virtually the entire company management had consistently misrepresented the plan, not just on one occasion or to one employee, but over a period of many years and both orally (in group meetings) and in writing (in newsletters) as well. 56 The Third Circuit stated: [T]he company had the foresight to draft and incorporate reservation of rights clauses into its retiree medical plans, which expressly gave the company the right to terminate the plans if they became onerous. Unisys was aware of the retirees confusion regarding the applicability of these clauses to their benefits and the retirees mistaken belief that their benefits could not be 53 Voyk v. Bhd. of Local Eng rs, 198 F.3d 599, 603 (6th Cir. 1999). 54 In Re: Unisys Corp., 57 F.3d 1255 (3d Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 517 U.S (1996). 55 See id. at Id. at
17 ERISA OBLIGATIONS 4.07 terminated once an employee retired. Under these circumstances, we find a duty to convey complete and accurate information arose. 57 In McMunn v. Pirelli Tires, LLC, 58 a district court accepted the common ruling that there is no liability for an employer that gives informal communications to its employees, if those communications are not an affirmative material misrepresentation. 59 However, where the informal communication conflicts with the terms of the plan or creates an ambiguity, a breach of fiduciary duty may arise if the employee is given misleading information in response to a specific inquiry by a person acting in a fiduciary capacity. The district court stated: Even under the narrowest reading of the relevant case law, any employees who were expressly told by a person acting in a fiduciary capacity that their retirement benefits could not be changed during retirement received affirmative misrepresentations. In contrast, the simple statement by a fiduciary that benefits will continue in retirement without any durational limit is not a material misrepresentation because the statement is neither untrue or [sic] misleading, and could not create a reasonable expectation that benefits had vested. 60 If the employee subsequently relies on this misinformation to his or her detriment, a breach of fiduciary duty claim may stand, notwithstanding ERISA s historical position that an employer s informal communications may not change the plan terms. 61 The balancing test focused on by the Pirelli court weighed the employees need for accurate, truthful information from their fiduciary against the employers interest in predictability as to its obligations Id. at 1265 n McMunn v. Pirelli Tires, LLC, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS (JBA) (D. Conn. July 19, 2001). 59 Id. 60 Id. at * Id. at * Id. at *
18 4.08 ENERGY & MINERAL LAW INSTITUTE What If the Claim for Retiree Medical Benefits Is Based on a Plan Adopted Prior to ERISA? While federal courts have relied on compliance with ERISA to determine whether an employer promised lifetime retiree medical benefits, there is the question of what happens when the employees allege that their substantive rights to retirement benefits, including retiree health benefits, were created before ERISA existed. In Burks v. American Cast Iron Pipe Co., 63 the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit addressed the issue. In Burks, the retirees claimed that the employer had promised them health benefits, including prescription drugs, for life. The retirees based their claims on oral representations of the company s former president and a written plan description from 1973 promising lifetime health benefits without reserving the right to amend the plan. Each of the retirees retired prior to the date on which ERISA was enacted, and the company continued to pay for medical care and medications until Then, in 1993, the company amended its benefits plan to require the retirees to pay 25 percent of the cost of their drugs and medicines. The Eleventh Circuit determined that the retiree s substantive rights were created before ERISA existed. When the participant s rights form before ERISA s effective date, the court as a matter of federal common law must interpret the plan in light of a worker s pre-erisa state law rights. 64 Therefore, the Eleventh Circuit ordered the district court, on remand, to examine state law to determine whether the employees retired, before ERISA s effective date, under a promise to pay lifetime prescription drug benefits that could not be amended Conclusion. The actions of an employer who offers a health benefits plan to its employees and retirees may constitute the acts of a fiduciary under ERISA. Thus, failure to adhere to the duties of ERISA fiduciaries may serve as 63 Burks v. American Cast Iron Pipe Co., 212 F.3d 1333 (11th Cir. 2000), rehearing en banc denied, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 27923, cert. denied, 2001 U.S. LEXIS 179 (2001). 64 Id. at 1337 (internal citation omitted). 65 Id. at
19 ERISA OBLIGATIONS 4.09 the basis for claims by plan beneficiaries. Where the employer makes changes, therefore, it must be aware of ERISA s fiduciary duties, and assure compliance with them as required by the plan s provisions and the federal courts. 115
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 18a0223p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT MEAD VEST, v. RESOLUTE FP US INC., Plaintiff-Appellant,
More informationDC: AVNET, INC. VOLUNTARY EMPLOYEE SEVERANCE PLAN
DC: 4069808-3 AVNET, INC. VOLUNTARY EMPLOYEE SEVERANCE PLAN Avnet, Inc. Voluntary Employee Severance Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction... 1 Eligibility... 2 Eligible Employees... 2 Circumstances Resulting
More informationEmployee Relations. A Farewell to Yard-Man. Craig C. Martin and Amanda S. Amert
Employee Relations L A W J O U R N A L ERISA Litigation A Farewell to Yard-Man Electronically reprinted from Summer 2015 Craig C. Martin and Amanda S. Amert In January, the U.S. Supreme Court finally did
More informationIn 2002, Caterpillar, Inc., added
The Employer Giveth and Taketh Away Retiree Health Benefits under ERISA-Governed Health Plans By Helen M. Kemp In 2002, Caterpillar, Inc., added $75 million to income with the accounting gain it got from
More informationERISA Litigation. ERISA Statute Fundamentals. What is ERISA, and where is the ERISA statute located? What is an ERISA plan?
ERISA Litigation Our expert attorneys have substantial experience representing third-party administrators, insurers, plans, plan sponsors, and employers in an array of ERISA litigation and benefits-related
More informationPhilip Dix v. Total Petrochemicals USA Inc Pension Plan
2013 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 9-30-2013 Philip Dix v. Total Petrochemicals USA Inc Pension Plan Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE GERSHWIN A. DRAIN
United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO-CLC v. Kelsey-Hayes Company et al Doc. 107 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION UNITED STEEL, PAPER AND FORESTRY, RUBBER,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT CHATTANOOGA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT CHATTANOOGA JOHN RANNIGAN, ) ) Plaintiff ) ) Case No. 1:08-CV-256 v. ) ) Chief Judge Curtis L. Collier LONG TERM DISABILITY INSURANCE ) FOR
More informationERISA Causes of Action *
1 ERISA Causes of Action * ERISA authorizes a variety of causes of action to remedy violations of the statute, to enforce the terms of a benefit plan, or to provide other relief to a plan, its participants
More information1992 WL United States District Court, C.D. California. Paul L. SPINK, et al., Plaintiffs, v. LOCKHEED CORPORATION, et al., Defendants.
1992 WL 437985 United States District Court, C.D. California. Paul L. SPINK, et al., Plaintiffs, v. LOCKHEED CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. No. CV 92 800 SVW (GHKX). July 31, 1992. Opinion ORDER GRANTING
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Nos. 10-2361 & 10-2362 MELISSA J. REDDINGER and SCOTT LEFEBVRE, v. Plaintiffs-Appellants, SENA SEVERANCE PAY PLAN and NEWPAGE WISCONSIN SYSTEM,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION
Trustees of the Ohio Bricklayers Health & Welfare Fund et al v. VIP Restoration, Inc. et al Doc. 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION Trustees of Ohio Bricklayers
More information2. Circuits Split on National Contacts Personal Jurisdiction Issue.
ERISA UPDATE TOP 10 ISSUES FOR PRACTITIONERS Jeffrey Lewis Sigman, Lewis & Feinberg, PC jlewis@sl-f.com Erin M. Sweeney Paul Hastings Janofsky & Walker, LLP emsweeney@phjw.com (510) 839-6824 (202) 508-9553
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 16-757 In the Supreme Court of the United States DOMICK NELSON, PETITIONER v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH
More informationVoluntary Short-Term Disability Insurance
Voluntary Short-Term Disability Insurance Employee Benefit Booklet Administered by MEDICAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY Cleveland, Ohio Town of Norton Group Number: SA04630 CLASS I ML2208C-501 L5559 MEDICAL
More informationPREEMPTION QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
PREEMPTION QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ERISA PREEMPTION QUESTIONS 1. What is an ERISA plan? An ERISA plan is any benefit plan that is established and maintained by an employer, an employee organization (union),
More informationNo IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
Case: 15-2382 Document: 71 Filed: 08/08/2017 Page: 1 No. 15-2382 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT JACK REESE; FRANCES ELAINE PIDDE; JAMES CICHANOFSKY; ROGER MILLER; GEORGE NOWLIN,
More informationDischarge Under the Code for ERISA "Fiduciaries"
Discharge Under the Code for ERISA "Fiduciaries" Devin Sullivan, J.D. Candidate 2010 The Bankruptcy Code ( Code ) provides debtors with relief from many of their outstanding debts. However, even under
More informationFirst Circuit Holds Private Equity Fund is a Trade or Business for Purposes of ERISA Controlled Group Pension Liability Rule
First Circuit Holds Private Equity Fund is a Trade or Business for Purposes of ERISA Controlled Group Pension Liability Rule In a recent decision impacting the potential liability of private equity investment
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Index No x.
Case 1:18-cv-06448 Document 1 Filed 07/17/18 Page 1 of 23 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Index No. 18-6448 ---------------------------------------------------------x VINCENT
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. Plaintiffs-Appellants, Defendants-Appellees.
Case: 17-10238 Document: 00514003289 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/23/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants,
More informationRosann Delso v. Trustees of Ret Plan Hourly Em
2009 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 7-7-2009 Rosann Delso v. Trustees of Ret Plan Hourly Em Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No.
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit No. 15-2984 Domick Nelson lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 12 3067 LAWRENCE G. RUPPERT and THOMAS A. LARSON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs Appellees, v. ALLIANT
More informationCase 2:17-cv CB Document 28 Filed 02/28/18 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 2:17-cv-01502-CB Document 28 Filed 02/28/18 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION ) BUREAU, ) ) Petitioner, ) Civil
More informationDEMYSTIFYING THE COMPLEXITIES OF ERISA CLAIMS LITIGATION
29 DEMYSTIFYING THE COMPLEXITIES OF ERISA CLAIMS LITIGATION By William E. Altman and Danielle C. Lester n 1974, Congress passed the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). ERISA covers a voluntary
More informationCase: 1:18-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 12/19/18 Page 1 of 20 PageID #:1
Case: 1:18-cv-08328 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/19/18 Page 1 of 20 PageID #:1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION BART KARLSON, Individually, and on behalf
More informationCase 3:11-cv WGY Document 168 Filed 01/10/13 Page 1 of 53 IN THE UNTIED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
Case 3:11-cv-00282-WGY Document 168 Filed 01/10/13 Page 1 of 53 IN THE UNTIED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT HEALTHCARE STRATEGIES, INC., Plan Administrator of the Healthcare Strategies,
More informationSummary Plan Description for: The Dow Chemical Company Texas Operations Hourly Total and Permanent Disability Plan
Summary Plan Description for: The Dow Chemical Company Texas Operations Hourly Total and Permanent Disability Plan Amended and Restated Effective January 1, 2013 and thereafter until superseded This Summary
More informationCIGNA Corp. v. Amara What the Decision Means for Plan Sponsors
CIGNA Corp. v. Amara What the Decision Means for Plan Sponsors American Benefits Council Benefits Briefing Webinar July 22nd 2:00 3:30 p.m. Lynn Dudley, Senior Vice President, Policy Lars Golumbic, Groom
More informationEmployee Relations. Stuck in the Middle: A Cautionary Tale About Beneficiary Designation Forms. Anne E. Moran
VOL. 34, NO. 4 SPRING 2009 Employee Relations L A W J O U R N A L Employee Benefits Stuck in the Middle: A Cautionary Tale About Beneficiary Designation Forms Anne E. Moran Recent developments in the United
More informationERISA REMEDIES, LIABILITIES AND EXPOSURES
Minimizing Legal Risks in the Designs, Implementation & Administration of Employee Benefit Plans November 17-18, 2015 ERISA REMEDIES, LIABILITIES AND EXPOSURES Stephen Rosenberg, Esq. The Wagner Law Group
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 09-4001 KARL SCHMIDT UNISIA, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant/Appellant, v. INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE,
More informationNo IN THE. On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
No. 13-1010 IN THE M&G POLYMERS USA, LLC, et al., v. HOBERT FREEL TACKETT et al., Petitioners, Respondents. On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit BRIEF OF GOLDSTEIN
More informationAVOIDING FIDUCIARY DUTY FOR DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS. Brian T. Ortelere Charles C. Jackson
AVOIDING FIDUCIARY DUTY FOR DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS I. INTRODUCTION Brian T. Ortelere Charles C. Jackson Recent highly publicized corporate reversals have spawned numerous class action lawsuits raising
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED MAR 07 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HOWARD LYLE ABRAMS, No. 16-55858 v. Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No.
More informationv No Macomb Circuit Court
S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N C O U R T O F A P P E A L S ROBERT ROHRER and THERESA ROHRER, Plaintiff-Appellees, UNPUBLISHED October 30, 2018 v No. 338224 Macomb Circuit Court CITY OF EASTPOINTE, LC No.
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 07-331 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- SUN LIFE ASSURANCE
More informationSTATE OF WISCONSIN TAX APPEALS COMMISSION 06-S-200, 06-S-201, 06-S-202 AND 07-S-45 DAVID C. SWANSON, COMMISSIONER:
STATE OF WISCONSIN TAX APPEALS COMMISSION BADGER STATE ETHANOL, LLC, DOCKET NOS. 06-S-199, 06-S-200, 06-S-201, 06-S-202 AND 07-S-45 Petitioner, vs. RULING AND ORDER WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Respondent.
More informationDepartment of Labor Reverses Course: Mortgage Loan Officers Do Not Meet the Administrative Exemption s Requirements
A Timely Analysis of Legal Developments A S A P In This Issue: March 2010 In a development that may have significant implications for mortgage lenders and other financial services employers, the Department
More informationIN THE OREGON TAX COURT MAGISTRATE DIVISION Municipal Tax ) ) I. INTRODUCTION
IN THE OREGON TAX COURT MAGISTRATE DIVISION Municipal Tax JOHN A. BOGDANSKI, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF PORTLAND, State of Oregon, Defendant. TC-MD 130075C DECISION OF DISMISSAL I. INTRODUCTION This matter
More informationTeamsters Local 843 v. Anheuser Busch Inc
2004 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 4-30-2004 Teamsters Local 843 v. Anheuser Busch Inc Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 02-4128
More informationNotice and Severance Pay Plan. Summary Plan Description
Notice and Severance Pay Plan Summary Plan Description Table of Contents Purpose... 1 Eligibility... 1 Exclusions... 1 Benefits Under the Plan... 3 Option A... 3 Option B... 6 Claims Procedure... 7 Legal
More informationPAYLESS SHOESOURCE, INC SEVERANCE PLAN AND SUMMARY PLAN DESCRIPTION
PAYLESS SHOESOURCE, INC SEVERANCE PLAN AND SUMMARY PLAN DESCRIPTION 2078068.2 PAYLESS SHOESOURCE, INC. SEVERANCE PLAN AND SUMMARY PLAN DESCRIPTION TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION... 1 SEVERANCE BENEFITS...
More informationU.S. Supreme Court Considering Fiduciary Responsibility For 401(k) Plan Company Stock Funds and Other Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOP)
Fiduciary Responsibility For Funds and Other Employee Andrew Irving Area Senior Vice President and Area Counsel The Supreme Court of the United States is poised to enter the debate over the standards of
More informationALI-ABA Course of Study ERISA Litigation. May 11-13, 2006 Boston, Massachusetts. Class Actions Under ERISA. Study Outline and Presentation Slides
237 ALI-ABA Course of Study ERISA Litigation May 11-13, 2006 Boston, Massachusetts Class Actions Under ERISA Study Outline and Presentation Slides By Thomas S. Gigot Christa D. Haas Groom Law Group, Chartered
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No D.C. Docket No. 0:15-cv RNS
Deborah Johnson, et al v. Catamaran Health Solutions, LL, et al Doc. 1109519501 Case: 16-11735 Date Filed: 05/02/2017 Page: 1 of 12 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH
More informationCase 2:16-cv JCM-CWH Document 53 Filed 07/30/18 Page 1 of 7. Plaintiff(s),
Case :-cv-0-jcm-cwh Document Filed 0/0/ Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA * * * 0 RUSSELL PATTON, v. Plaintiff(s), FINANCIAL BUSINESS AND CONSUMER SOLUTIONS, INC, Defendant(s). Case
More informationALI-ABA Course of Study Insurance Industry and Financial Services Litigation. May 10-11, 2007 Chicago, Illinois. Update on ERISA Litigation
345 ALI-ABA Course of Study Insurance Industry and Financial Services Litigation May 10-11, 2007 Chicago, Illinois Update on ERISA Litigation By Elizabeth J. Bondurant, Esquire Andrea K. Cataland, Esquire
More information12 Pro Te: Solutio. edicare
12 Pro Te: Solutio edicare Medicare Secondary Payer Act TThe opportunity to resolve a lawsuit can present itself at almost any time during the course of personal injury litigation. A case may settle shortly
More informationFinal Rule Relating to Time and Order of Issuance of Domestic Relations Orders
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employee Benefits Security Administration 29 CFR Part 2530 RIN 1210-AB15 Final Rule Relating to Time and Order of Issuance of Domestic Relations Orders AGENCY: Employee Benefits Security
More informationCase 1:09-cv Document 46 Filed 04/09/2009 Page 1 of 18
Case 1:09-cv-00616 Document 46 Filed 04/09/2009 Page 1 of 18 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION IGNACY GREEN, PATRICK COOPER, ) and all those similarly
More informationCase 1:05-cv RAE Document 36 Filed 08/08/2006 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Case 1:05-cv-00408-RAE Document 36 Filed 08/08/2006 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION NAYDA LOPEZ and BENJAMIN LOPEZ, Case No. 1:05-CV-408 Plaintiffs,
More informationIn the Missouri Court of Appeals WESTERN DISTRICT
In the Missouri Court of Appeals WESTERN DISTRICT KANSAS CITY HISPANIC ASSOCIATION CONTRACTORS ENTERPRISE, INC AND DIAZ CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, APPELLANTS, V. CITY OF KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
More informationStakes Are High For ERISA Fiduciaries
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Stakes Are High For ERISA Fiduciaries Law360, New
More informationSPECIAL REPORT EMPLOYEE BENEFIT SUMMARY PLAN REQUIREMENTS
SPECIAL REPORT EMPLOYEE BENEFIT SUMMARY PLAN REQUIREMENTS (06-17-13) This Special Report was written by Daniel P. Hale, J.D., CPCU, ARM, CRM, LIC, AIC, AIS, API of Marsh & McLennan Agency LLC. Mr. Dan
More informationBEFORE THE NATIONAL ADJUDICATORY COUNCIL FINANCIAL INDUSTRY REGULATORY AUTHORITY DECISION
BEFORE THE NATIONAL ADJUDICATORY COUNCIL FINANCIAL INDUSTRY REGULATORY AUTHORITY In the Matter of Department of Enforcement, Complainant, vs. DECISION Complaint No. 2010021621201 Dated: May 20, 2014 Michael
More informationCERTIFICATES OF INSURANCE AFTER THE OMNI DECISION THE 6TH ANNUAL CONSTRUCTION SYMPOSIUM
CERTIFICATES OF INSURANCE AFTER THE OMNI DECISION THE 6TH ANNUAL CONSTRUCTION SYMPOSIUM Prepared by: Jana S. Reist 900 Jackson Street, Suite 100 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: 214-712-9512 Telecopy: 214-712-9540
More informationCase 2:16-cv CCC-SCM Document 13 Filed 06/27/17 Page 1 of 10 PageID: 94
Case 2:16-cv-04422-CCC-SCM Document 13 Filed 06/27/17 Page 1 of 10 PageID: 94 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY RAFAEL DISLA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA FLORENCE DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA FLORENCE DIVISION Carolina Care Plan, Inc., ) Civil Action No.:4:06-00792-RBH ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) O R D E R ) Auddie Brown Auto
More informationDIRECTORS AND OFFICERS LIABILITY ERISA ENTERS THE SPOTLIGHT
DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS LIABILITY ERISA ENTERS THE SPOTLIGHT JOSEPH M. MCLAUGHLIN * SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP DECEMBER 9, 2004 Directors of public companies and their advisers have long understood
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION. CNH INDUSTRIAL N.V., et al.,
Reese et al v. CNH America, L. L. C. Doc. 445 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION JACK REESE, et al., vs. Plaintiffs, CNH INDUSTRIAL N.V., et al., Civil Action No.
More informationCase 3:16-cv SMR-HCA Document 38 Filed 03/27/18 Page 1 of 17
Case 3:16-cv-00119-SMR-HCA Document 38 Filed 03/27/18 Page 1 of 17 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA DAVENPORT DIVISION MARTIN BEALE, SR., ROBERT GARROW, ) Case No.
More informationCOMMENTARY. Secret: Location, Location, Location! JONES DAY
August 2009 JONES DAY COMMENTARY Retiree Medical Litigation s Dirty Little Secret: Location, Location, Location! Over the past 30 years, a tsunami of retiree medical litigation has crashed over the dockets
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
Case 4:16-cv-00325-CWD Document 50 Filed 11/15/17 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORPORATION, vs. Plaintiff IDAHO HYPERBARICS, INC., as Plan
More informationALI-ABA Course of Study Pension, Profit-Sharing, Welfare, and Other Compensation Plans. March 26-28, 2008 San Francisco, California
1 ALI-ABA Course of Study Pension, Profit-Sharing, Welfare, and Other Compensation Plans March 26-28, 2008 San Francisco, California What's New in Employee Benefits A Summary of Current Case and Other
More informationVan Camp & Bennion v. United States 251 F.3d 862 (9th Cir. Wash. 2001).
Van Camp & Bennion v. United States 251 F.3d 862 (9th Cir. Wash. 2001). CLICK HERE to return to the home page No. 96-36068. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted September
More informationRedefining. A plan sponsor s guide. roles and responsibilities. for saving time and managing risk
Redefining roles and responsibilities A plan sponsor s guide for saving time and managing risk Employer-sponsored retirement plans serve two important goals: attracting and retaining skilled employees;
More informationADVANCE SHEET HEADNOTE June 28, 2010
Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are available to the public and can be accessed through the Court s homepage at http://www.courts.state.co.us. Opinions are also posted on the Colorado Bar Association
More informationDeborah R. Bauer and Diane G. Wright, on behalf of themselves and those
274 Ga. App. 381 A05A0455. ADVANCEPCS et al. v. BAUER et al. PHIPPS, Judge. Deborah R. Bauer and Diane G. Wright, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, filed a class action complaint against
More informationARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS. Appeal of -- ) ) The Swanson Group, Inc. ) ASBCA No ) Under Contract No. N C-9509 )
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of -- ) ) The Swanson Group, Inc. ) ASBCA No. 54863 ) Under Contract No. N68711-91-C-9509 ) APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT:
More informationPegram v. Herdrich, 90 days later By Jeffrey Isaac Ehrlich
Pegram v. Herdrich, 90 days later By Jeffrey Isaac Ehrlich More than a third of all Americans receive their healthcare through employersponsored managed care plans; that is, through plans subject to ERISA.
More informationNATIONAL HOME HEALTH CARE CORP SEVERANCE PAY PLAN. As Amended and Restated Effective as of July 17, 2017
NATIONAL HOME HEALTH CARE CORP SEVERANCE PAY PLAN As Amended and Restated Effective as of July 17, 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE Section 1. Introduction.... 1 Section 2. Eligibility.... 1 Section 3. Calculation
More informationFORM 8-K GENERAL MOTORS CORP - GM. Filed: October 15, 2007 (period: October 10, 2007) Report of unscheduled material events or corporate changes.
FORM 8-K GENERAL MOTORS CORP - GM Filed: October 15, 2007 (period: October 10, 2007) Report of unscheduled material events or corporate changes. Table of Contents 8-K - CURRENT REPORT, DATED OCTOBER 10,
More informationThe Impact of Dudenhoeffer on Lower Court Stock-Drop Cases
The Impact of Dudenhoeffer on Lower Court Stock-Drop Cases ALYSSA OHANIAN The Supreme Court recently held in Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer, 134 S. Ct. 2459 (2014), that employer stock ownership plan
More informationCase 1:07-cv DAB Document 1 Filed 02/23/2007 Page 1 of C. Defendants. X. Class Action Complaint
JUDGL- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK GEOFFREY OSBERG ATTS Case 1:07-cv-01358-DAB Document 1 Filed 02/23/2007 Page 1 of 23 07 C X r FEB 2?007 U.S.D.0 t N CAShiER5 On behalf
More informationFOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. August Term, (Argued: August 22, 2012 Decided: August 30, 2012)
11-3209 Easterling v. Collecto, Inc. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT August Term, 2012 (Argued: August 22, 2012 Decided: August 30, 2012) BERLINCIA EASTERLING, on behalf of herself
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 12-163 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- NEWELL WINDOW FURNISHINGS,
More informationSECTION IX OTHER INFORMATION YOU SHOULD KNOW
SECTION IX OTHER INFORMATION YOU SHOULD KNOW A. Notice of Denial B. Your Right to Appeal C. Assignment of Benefits D. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation E. How Benefits May Be Reduced, Delayed or Lost
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: 538 U. S. (2003) 1 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of
More informationSTATE OF NEW JERSEY. SENATE, No SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE STATEMENT TO. with committee amendments DATED: DECEMBER 17, 2015
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE STATEMENT TO SENATE, No. 2035 with committee amendments STATE OF NEW JERSEY DATED: DECEMBER 17, 2015 The Senate Judiciary Committee reports favorably and with committee amendments
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 03-2210 THOMAS BRADEMAS, et al., v. Plaintiffs-Appellants, INDIANA HOUSING FINANCE AUTHORITY, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United
More informationA Notable Footnote In High Court Merit Management Decision
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com A Notable Footnote In High Court Merit Management
More informationNOTICE AND SEVERANCE PAY
Summary Plan Description NOTICE AND SEVERANCE PAY 12/2014 i Notice and Severance Pay Table of Contents Purpose... 1 Eligibility... 1 Exclusions... 1 Benefits Under the Plan... 3 Option A... 3 Option B...
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
Vorpahl v. Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Insurance Company Doc. 44 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS JACQUELINE VORPAHL, DANIELLE PASQUALE, and KATHERINE McGUIRE Plaintiffs, v. No. 17-cv-10844-DJC
More informationRyan et al v. Flowers Foods, Inc. et al Doc. 53. Case 1:17-cv TWT Document 53 Filed 07/16/18 Page 1 of 15
Ryan et al v. Flowers Foods, Inc. et al Doc. 53 Case 1:17-cv-00817-TWT Document 53 Filed 07/16/18 Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN. Plaintiffs Case No. 16-CV-1678 CLASS ACTION AMENDED COMPLAINT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN BRENTEN GEORGE and DENISE VALENTE- McGEE, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals, V. Plaintiffs Case No. 16-CV-1678 CNH
More informationERISA: An Introduction
ERISA: An Introduction HFMA Northern California Spring Conference, March 26, 2018 Presented By Eric D. Chan Partner, Hooper, Lundy & Bookman PC Los Angeles San Francisco San Diego Washington D.C. Overview
More informationCAMBRIDGE PROPERTY & CASUALTY SPECIAL REPORT
CAMBRIDGE PROPERTY & CASUALTY SPECIAL REPORT EMPLOYEE BENEFIT SUMMARY PLAN REQUIREMENTS This Special Report was written by Daniel P. Hale, J.D., CPCU, ARM, CRM, LIC, AIC, AIS, API. Mr. Hale is Vice President
More informationSEPARATION AGREEMENTS CENTRAL NEW YORK SALES & MARKETING EXECUTIVES
SEPARATION AGREEMENTS CENTRAL NEW YORK SALES & MARKETING EXECUTIVES The New Yorker Collection 2006 Frank Cotham from cartoonbank.com. All Rights Reserved. By: JONATHAN M. CERRITO Franklin Center Suite
More informationERISA Overpayments Claims & Defenses
ERISA Overpayments Claims & Defenses AIDS Legal Referral Panel November 14, 2018 MCLE Training Kirsten Scott Renaker Hasselman Scott, LLP 235 Montgomery Street, Suite 944 San Francisco, CA 94104 415-653-1733
More informationKAISER PERMANENTE EMPLOYMENT TRANSITION AND SEVERANCE BENEFITS PLAN FOR PROGRAM OFFICES AND IT NON- UNION HOURLY AND SALARIED EMPLOYEES
KAISER PERMANENTE EMPLOYMENT TRANSITION AND SEVERANCE BENEFITS PLAN FOR PROGRAM OFFICES AND IT NON- UNION HOURLY AND SALARIED EMPLOYEES Summary Plan Description As Amended and Restated Effective as of
More informationNotice of Proposed Rulemaking Action Title 28, California Code of Regulations
Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor State of California Business, Transportation and Housing Agency Department of Managed Health Care Office of Legal Services 980 Ninth Street, Suite 500 Sacramento, CA 95814-2725
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS. No.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS ROY E. RINARD and STEVE LACEY, Plaintiffs, No. v. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT ENRON CORP. and THE NORTHERN TRUST COMPANY, Defendants. Plaintiffs, by their
More informationSPD Administrative Information
Administrative Information 04/01/2018 15-1 Administrative Information This section contains information on the administration and funding of all the plans described in this book, as well as your rights
More informationNOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 12a0935n.06. No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 12a0935n.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT MAZAK CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WILLIAM KING, Defendant-Appellant. ON APPEAL
More informationFROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND Melvin R. Hughes, Jr., Judge. This appeal is from an order removing George B.
Present: All the Justices GEORGE B. LITTLE, TRUSTEE OPINION BY v. Record No. 941475 CHIEF JUSTICE HARRY L. CARRICO June 9, 1995 WILLIAM S. WARD, JR., ET AL. FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND
More informationSupreme Court of the United States. Pam HUBER, Petitioner, v. WAL-MART STORES, INC., Respondent November 9, 2007.
Supreme Court of the United States. Pam HUBER, Petitioner, v. WAL-MART STORES, INC., Respondent. No. 07-480 480. November 9, 2007. On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals
More informationThis Webcast Will Begin Shortly
This Webcast Will Begin Shortly If you have any technical problems with the Webcast or the streaming audio, please contact us via email at: webcast@acc.com Thank You! Severance Plan Design: Legal and Practical
More informationRicciardi v. Ameriquest Mtg Co
2006 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 1-17-2006 Ricciardi v. Ameriquest Mtg Co Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 05-1409 Follow
More information