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

District Court Finds Forum Selection Clause Unenforceable in ERISA Action
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • July 28 2016

A federal district court in Illinois ruled that a plan’s forum selection was unenforceable because it conflicts with ERISA’s public policy of


Third Circuit limits relief available to ERISA welfare plans seeking reimbursement of medical expenses
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • November 17 2011

In a case of significant importance for plan sponsors and fiduciaries, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held in US Airways, Inc. v. McCutchen, No. 10-3836 (3d Cir. Nov. 16, 2011), that an employee benefit plan was not entitled to full reimbursement of medical expenses it paid to a participant even though the plan provided that the participant was required to reimburse the plan for all amounts paid "out of any monies recovered from a third party."


“Never mind” DOL withdraws proposed regulation on the definition of an ERISA “fiduciary”
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • November 7 2011

In October 2010, the Department of Labor (DOL) issued a proposed regulation setting forth a new, broader interpretation of the statutory definition of a “fiduciary” under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001, et seq.


Reconciling obligations relating to the production of documents under ERISA 104(b)(4) versus the claims regulation, 29 C.F.R. 2560.503-1
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • November 7 2011

There are a few issues raised by the need to comply with both the statutory provision and the regulation governing the production of documents in response to participant requests: who is required to produce what, when, and who is the entity liable for damages?


The Supreme Court’s decision in Cigna Corp. v. Amara
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • November 7 2011

Amara was a very significant decision in several respects.


Tenth circuit issues significant post-Amara ruling on disclosure requirements in connection with cash balance conversions
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • October 5 2011

Just three months after the Supreme Court's decision in CIGNA Corporation v. Amara, 131 S. Ct. 1866 (2011), the Tenth Circuit issued an opinion in Tomlinson v. El Paso Corp., No. 10-CV-1385, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 16525 (10th Cir. Aug. 11, 2011), which addresses the disclosure issues under ERISA 102 and 204(h), 29 U.S.C. 1022 and 1054(h), that arise when employers convert traditional defined benefit plans to cash balance plans.


Do you know what it means to know? Actual knowledge and ERISA Section 41315
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • August 5 2011

Statutes of limitation restrict the time period in which a plaintiff can bring a claim.


Hitching a ride on the wage and hour gravy train: a primer on ERISA lawsuits seeking relief based on alleged violations of the FLSA
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • April 11 2011

In recent years, some plaintiffs seeking relief for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) have also asserted claims against their employer under ERISA in conjunction with their wage claims.


Third time’s the charm: Ninth Circuit finally adopts Moench presumption of prudence
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • November 3 2010

In Quan v. Computer Sciences Corp., Nos. 09-56190, 09-56248, 2010 WL 3784702 (9th Cir. Sept. 30, 2010), the Ninth Circuit joined the Third, Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Circuits in adopting the presumption of prudence first espoused in Moench v. Robertson, 62 F.3d 553 (3d Cir. 1995), pursuant to which a plan fiduciary’s decision to permit investment in employer stock is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.


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.