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 38

Class certification
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • March 14 2012

In Nationwide Life Ins. Co. v. Haddock, 10-4237-cv, 2012 WL 360633 (2d Cir. Feb. 6, 2012) (unpublished), the Second Circuit Court of Appeals vacated a class-certification order granted under Rule 23(b)(2), which permitted trustees of over 24,000 pension plans to assert class claims over fee arrangements in variable annuity contracts the plans held with Nationwide.


Preemption
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • November 7 2011

In Fossen v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Montana, Inc., ---F.3d---, 2011 WL 4926006 (9th Cir. Oct. 18, 2011), the court held that ERISA and HIPAA preempted plaintiffs’ state law claims seeking restitution of health care coverage premiums they allegedly overpaid.


Rulings, filings, and settlements of interest
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • October 5 2011

In Franco v. Connecticut General Life Ins. Co., No. 07-cv-6039, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109022 (D.N.J. Sept. 23, 2011), plaintiffs, who were plan subscribers, health care providers, and several associations whose members consisted of out-of-network ("ONET") providers who provided ONET services to patients insured by CIGNA, alleged that CIGNA violated its contractual obligations to pay for ONET services at the "usual, customary and reasonable" ("UCR") rate by relying on the flawed database maintained by Ingenix, which generated artificially low UCRs to underpay ONET benefits to CIGNA plan members.


Seventh Circuit confirms that receipt of benefit distribution can trigger statute of limitations; also precludes deference to plan administrator where no discretion exercised
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • August 5 2011

This month, we feature two articles that discuss the accrual of statutes of limitations for ERISA claims, providing practical insight into reliance on the statutes to bar plaintiffs’ claims.


CIGNA Corp. v. Amara: changing the landscape of ERISA litigation
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • June 7 2011

This month, we lead with an article addressing the Supreme Court's decision in CIGNA Corp. v. Amara.


Seventh Circuit revisits issue of remedies available under ERISA 502(a)(3) in reviving class action
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • May 9 2011

In Kenseth v. Dean Health Plan, Inc., 610 F.3d 452 (7th Cir. 2010) and Smith v. Medical Benefits Adm’rs Grp. Inc., No. 09-3865 (7th Cir. Mar. 15, 2011), the Seventh Circuit considered whether a plan participant, who was misadvised as to hisher entitlement to medical coverage, was entitled to relief when the participant subsequently learned, after receiving the medical treatment, that coverage was in fact not available.


Class Certification
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • April 11 2011

In In re Lockheed Martin Corp., Nos. 09-8019, 09-8022, 2011 WL 880760 (7th Cir. Mar. 15, 2011), the court granted defendants’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(f) petition to decertify a class of ERISA 401(k) plan participants who alleged that defendants breached their fiduciary duties by causing the plan to pay excessive fees.


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.


Cigna Corp. v. Amara: the “likely prejudice” standard under the microscope
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • December 10 2010

On November 30, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in CIGNA Corp. v. Amara, Case No. 09-804.


Department of Labor issues interim final regulations requiring new fee disclosures by pension plan service providers
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • August 11 2010

The U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) recently published interim final regulations (the “Interim Final Regulations”) under Section 408(b)(2) of the U.S. Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (“ERISA”), which will require certain service providers to employee pension benefit plans and entities holding “plan assets” to disclose information regarding their compensation so as to assist plan fiduciaries in assessing the reasonableness of the service provider’s contract with the plan and the potential for conflicts of interest.