One of the more notable fiduciary liability trends in recent years has been the wave of employer-sponsored retirement account excess fee litigation. In the following guest post, Neil R. Morrison, Lars Golumbic, and Kara Petteway Wheatley take a look at a possible new fiduciary liability trend – health plan fee litigation. Neil is an Associate Vice President and Claims Counsel at Sompo, North America in Morristown, N.J., and Lars Golumbic and Kara Petteway Wheatley are Principals at Groom Law Group, Chartered in Washington, D.C. This article was originally published by Mealey’s Litigation Report: ERISA.  I would like to thank the authors for allowing me to publish their article as a guest post on this site. I welcome guest post submissions from responsible authors on topics of interest to this site’s readers. Please contact me directly if you would like to submit a guest post. Here is the authors’ article.Continue Reading Guest Post: Health Plan Fee Litigation: The Next Wave of ERISA Litigation?

In the following guest post, James L. Griffith, Jr., of the Reger Rizzo Darnall LLP law firm, takes a look at looming retirement funding problems and the potential liability implications for ERISA fiduciaries. Jim also makes some recommendations on ways that fiduciaries can try to reduce their risk profile. I would like to thank Jim for allowing me to publish his article as a guest post on this site. I welcome guest post submissions from responsible authors on topics of interest to this site’s readers. Please contact me directly if you would like to submit a guest post. Here is Jim’s article.Continue Reading Guest Post: Protecting ERISA Fiduciaries from Wrongful Blame for the Retirement Funding Crisis

daveandbustersThe Affordable Care Act – better known as Obamacare – contains numerous provisions that define the relationships between employers and their employees with respect to health care benefits. Among the most critical are the statute’s employer mandates requiring employers with more than 50 employees to offer health insurance coverage to its employees who work 30 hours or more a week or face statutory penalties. As I have previously noted in discussing possible Obamacare-related employer liability issues, the ACA’s mandate creates incentives for employers to try to restructure their workforce to avoid the statute’s requirements. However, as I have also noted, employer actions to restructure their workforces to avoid providing health plan benefits could lead to liability claims under ERISA.

A recent decision from the Southern District of New York shows how an employer’s actions to reduce full-time staff to part-time status — allegedly undertaken in an effort to avoid the health care law’s impact — can lead to ERISA class action claims. The decision also underscores how the affected employees may be able to assert viable ERISA claims.
Continue Reading Can Workforce Changes Made in Response to Obamacare Mandates Lead to Employer Liability Claims? Yes, They Can

sup ct 5ERISA plan fiduciaries have a continuing duty to monitor selected plan investments and to remove imprudent investment selections, according to the U.S. Supreme Court’s unanimous May 18, 2015 opinion in Tibble v. Edison International. Although the Court affirmed the fiduciary duty to monitor, it otherwise left the development of the duty’s contours to be delineated

dolAccording to a June 23, 2014 Wall Street Journal article entitled “U.S. Increases Scrutiny of Employee-Stock Ownership Plans” (here), the federal government is “stepping up scrutiny of how U.S. companies are valued for employee-stock ownership plans.” This increased scrutiny includes increased litigation activity, often alleging that ESOP share valuations are flawed. The targets

On July 24, 2013, in a case the court said was one of “first impression,” the First Circuit held that, due to the nature of its involvement in the management of its portfolio company’s operations, a private equity firm was potentially liable for the portfolio company’s pension obligations. The decision has significant implications for the

I am pleased to publish below a guest post from my good friend Kimberly M. Melvin and her colleague John E. Howell, both of the Wiley Rein LLP law firm. Kim and John’s article discusses a recent decision from New York’s high court and its implications for the scope of coverage under a fiduciary

The conventional view is that plaintiffs may be faring poorly in many of the subprime-related cases. However, plaintiffs have in fact been doing relatively better in ’33 Act claims brought by purchasers of mortgage-backed securities. A recent ruling in the Wells Fargo Mortgage-Backed Certificates Litigation, in which a significant number of plaintiffs’ claims survived the defendants’ motions