We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.

Search results

Order by: most recent most popular relevance



Results:1-10 of 39

No Standing To Pursue Fiduciary-Breach Claim Where Plan Became Overfunded During Litigation
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • November 1 2017

The Eighth Circuit held that defined benefit pension plan participants who alleged breach of fiduciary duty and prohibited transaction claims under


Eighth Circuit Affirms Enforcement of ERISA Plan Forum Selection Clause
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • October 6 2016

The Eighth Circuit enforced an ERISA plan’s forum selection clause and denied Plaintiff’s appeal to have her lawsuit for disability benefits


Fidelity Prevails In ERISA Float Litigation
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • July 29 2016

The First Circuit joined the Eighth Circuit in finding that Fidelity’s practice of earning overnight “float” interest on the cash paid out to 401(k)


Rulings, filings, and settlements of interest
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • February 19 2013

In Govrik v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am., 702 F.3d 1103 (8th Cir. 2013), the Eighth Circuit held that Unum operated under a structural conflict of


Déjà vu the Seventh Circuit again rules in an excessive fee case, expanding on Hecker v. Deere, and taking a leading role in the field
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • October 5 2011

This month, we examine two recent circuit court opinions.


Proskauer is perspective
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • January 13 2011

Our look back at the past year, and forward into the coming year, confirms the enduring nature of ERISA litigation practice.


Rulings, filings and settlements of interest
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • November 3 2010

In Matschiner v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., 2010 WL 3910217 (8th Cir. Oct. 7, 2010), the Eighth Circuit applied the “plan documents rule” established by the Supreme Court in Kennedy v. Plan Administrator for DuPont Savings & Investment Plan, 129 S.Ct. 865 (2009), and concluded that Hartford properly paid benefits pursuant to a beneficiary designation form rather than a Nebraska state divorce decree that purported to divest the decedent’s ex-husband of his right to the benefits.


Rulings, filings and settlements of interest
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • July 13 2010

In the wake of Hardt v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., 130 S. Ct. 2149 (May 24, 2010), in which the Supreme Court held that a party must achieve "some success on the merits" in order to obtain an attorney’s fee award under ERISA, two federal circuits have concluded that the so-called "five-factor test" for determining such awards used by many district courts prior to Hardt remains an appropriate analytical framework for deciding whether to award attorneys fees under ERISA, but only after first concluding that a party has achieved some success on the merits.


ERISA’s statute of limitations for benefit claims: where to begin?
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • July 13 2010

For plan counsel, the defense of claims for benefits is often complicated by the rather pro-participant nature of ERISA's rules governing the statute of limitations.


Rulings, filings and settlements of interest
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • April 5 2010

In In re Guidant Corp. ERISA Litig., No. 05-CV-01009 (S.D. Ind. Mar. 18, 2010), plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of a settlement that will provide them with $7 million to resolve their employer stock-drop claims.