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:1-6 of 6

Renfro v. Unisys: what’s at stake?
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • April 11 2011

Currently pending before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals is plaintiffs’ appeal of the district court’s decision in Renfro v. Unisys, No. 07-2098, 2010 WL 1688540 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 26, 2010).2


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
  • September 2 2010

In In re Mercury Interactive Corp. Sec. Litig., 2010 WL 3239460 (9th Cir. Aug. 18, 2010), the Ninth Circuit held that in the settlement of a putative class action, district courts must set the deadline for class counsel to file their fee application before the deadline for class members to object to the proposed settlement.


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.


Rulings, filings and settlements of interest
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • March 16 2010

In Unisys Corp. v. Adair, et al., (U.S. Feb. 22, 2010), the U.S. Supreme Court denied Unisys Corp.’s petition for certiorari, thus leaving intact the Third Circuit’s ruling that Unisys Corp. breached its fiduciary duties by failing adequately to disclose that it could terminate its retiree health plan.