The U.S. Supreme Court does not often issue decisions interpreting the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), so when the Justices speak, the issues are significant.
Today, the Supreme Court, in a unanimous 8-0 decision (with Justice Sotomayor taking no part in the consideration of the case) vacated and remanded CIGNA Corp. v. Amara, No. 09-804, 563 U.S. ____ (2011) to the district court for further consideration.
In a pair of recent decisions, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has held that federal courts have jurisdiction over a class action that has been removed from state court when a defendant estimates that the $5 million amount-in-controversy requirement has been met, unless the plaintiff can show that it would be legally impossible to recover that amount.
On September 29, 2010, in the Computer Associates International Derivative Litigation, Judge Thomas C. Platt of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted a motion to dismiss derivative claims asserted against Ernst & Young LLP ("E&Y") and KPMG LLP ("KMPG"), the former and current auditors of Computer Associates ("CA").
A two-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (the “Court”) on February 16, 2010 vacated the dismissal of a putative class action securities fraud claim brought by shareholders of the Smith Barney family of funds (the “Funds”) under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and remanded the case to the district court.
Church Homes Inc, a nursing home operator in Hartford, Conn, agreed to pay 133 current and former employees $2.55 million in back pay, interest and pension credits whom it illegally replaced during a 1999 strike.
A New York federal court recently held that a coverage action between former television producers and their insurers should be transferred from New York to California because the events involved in the underlying action occurred and a majority of the witnesses and evidence is located in California.