Two courts. Two opposite rulings. One critical question: Do plaintiffs have standing to challenge pension risk transfers under ERISA?
In the first two decisions to address Article III standing in this rising wave of class actions, federal courts in Maryland and D.C. have landed on opposing sides. One case will head to discovery; the other
Seyfarth Synopsis: Since September 2023, there have been at least 25 lawsuits filed claiming the ability to choose between using 401(k) forfeitures to reduce plan expenses or the plan sponsor’s contributions is a fiduciary choice, and that choosing to reduce the plan sponsor’s contributions constitutes a violation of ERISA’s fiduciary duties. In the latest decision
Tuesday, October 24, 2023
2:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. Eastern
1:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. Central
12:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m. Mountain
11:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Pacific
This year, we’ve seen a number of key developments that are shifting the landscape of ERISA Litigation.
Join us for this update, where our presenters couple their
By: Tom Horan and Sam Schwartz-Fenwick
Seyfarth Synopsis: A recent district court decision highlights the continued uncertainties about what it means to include an arbitration clause in an ERISA plan. While courts generally agree that such clauses are, in theory, enforceable, the extent to which courts will enforce a specific clause remains uncertain given divergent
By: Ryan Tikker
2022 has seen an increase in putative class actions brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) (29 U.S.C. §§ 1109 and 1132) against plan fiduciaries. Plaintiffs typically allege that plan fiduciaries breached the duties that ERISA imposes of employee retirement plans, namely, that the fiduciaries breached their duties of loyalty
By: Ryan Tikker
Recently, the Ninth Circuit addressed and further clarified the requirement of a “full and fair review” in the context of a long-term disability benefit case under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). In matters that go to litigation, the Ninth Circuit held that a district court may not rely on rationales