By:  Ian Morrison and Alexis Hawley

 The Sixth Circuit recently issued a decision that commercial banks around the country will applaud.  In McLemore v. EFS, Inc., Nos. 10-5480/5491, (6th Cir. June 8, 2012), the Court dismissed both ERISA and state law claims brought by former clients of an investment advisor who swindled millions of

By: Mark Casciari and Ada Dolph

A district judge of the Eastern District of New York held in Trustees of the Local 138 Pension Trust Fund v. Logan Circle Partners, L.P. et al., No. 10 Civ. 5758 (E.D.N.Y. May 25, 2012), that a multiemployer pension plan’s amended complaint against an asset manager alleging a

By: Ronald Kramer , Megan Troy and Sam Schwartz-Fenwick

On Friday, in Taylor v. KeyCorp, Nos. 10-4163, -4198, -4199, (6th Cir. May 25, 2012), the Sixth Circuit affirmed a district court’s dismissal in an ERISA stock-drop case, holding the remaining proposed named class plaintiff lacked standing because she could not establish an “injury in

By: Ian Morrison and Michelle M. Scannell

In Cataldo v. United States Steel Corp., No. 10-3583, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court’s ruling that the claims of 225 current and former employees of U.S. Steel Corporation (“U.S. Steel”) for breach of fiduciary duty were time-barred under ERISA’s applicable statute

By: Ian Morrison

Plan fiduciaries often face difficult decisions when unexpected economic conditions cause significant swings in plan asset values.  A recent decision from Judge Charles Breyer of the Northern District of California gives fiduciaries some comfort that if they are called to task about their handling of these situations, reason will prevail.  Specifically, Judge

By: Ian Morrison and Sam Schwartz-Fenwick

It has become relatively common for plaintiffs’ counsel to add ERISA claims to wage and hour class actions under the Fair Labor Standards Act alleging off the clock work or failure to comply with minimum wage and overtime requirements.  (This phenomenon is reminiscent of the now dwindling wave of

By D. Ward Kallstrom and Justin T. Curley

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California recently ruled that a plan fiduciary owes a fiduciary duty – and consequently may be held liable for a breach of that duty under ERISA Section 404(a)(1), 29 U.S.C. § 1104(a)(1) – even when performing ministerial tasks