There is a deep circuit split on who bears the burden of proving loss causation on ERISA breach of fiduciary duty claims. The Supreme Court has now
Seyfarth Synopsis: Over the last several years, the law governing disputes on lifetime retiree health benefits in the Sixth Circuit has had many
It's a common fact pattern. A plan participant is injured and received benefits for treatment of his injuries. The participant then sues a third
Knowingly spending money that isn't yours sounds like a no-no, but depending on how the Supreme Court rules in Montanile v. Board of Trustees of the
There are roughly 1,500 multiemployer pension plans covering more than 10 million American workers and retirees. A March report by the U.S
On June 13, 2013, the Seventh Circuit held that the Supreme Court's decision CIGNA Corp. v. Amara authorized an ERISA plaintiff seeking equitable
In Plambeck v. The Kroger Co., et al., No. CIV. 11-5054-JLV (D.S.D. Mar. 11, 2013), Plaintiff underwent back surgery that she believed to be covered
On August 20, 2012, the Sixth Circuit affirmed a district court’s decision that a third-party administrator breached its fiduciary duties to a number of employee benefit plan sponsors by paying its own expenses with funds that were supposed to pay participant claims despite language in the relevant contracts that expressly stated that it was not a fiduciary.
On Friday, in Taylor v. KeyCorp, Nos. 10-4163, -4198, -4199, (6th Cir. May 25, 2012), the Sixth Circuit affirmed a district court’s dismissal in an ERISA stock-drop case, holding the remaining proposed named class plaintiff lacked standing because she could not establish an “injury in fact” when she sold the majority of her holdings in the company stock for a profit at a time she claims the stock was artificially inflated.
On May 8, 2012, the Eleventh and Second Circuits affirmed two district court dismissals of “stock drop” cases at the pleadings stage, joining the long line of recent decisions that demonstrate skepticism towards stock drop claims.