The Sixth Circuit is fast making itself the center of case law on equitable remedies under ERISA. In Pearce v. Chrysler Group LLC Pension Plan, 2015 WL 3797385 (6th Cir. June 18, 2015), the court held that a material conflict between an SPD and the plan permits a claim for equitable relief, apparently without any other element (like reliance) being required. For more discussion of the Sixth Circuit rulings on this subject in the last year or so, see Rochow 1, Rochow 2, and Stiso. Continue reading
In Stiso v. Intl. Steel Group, 2015 WL 3555917 (6th Cir. June 9, 2015), the court reversed a ruling by the district court that dismissed a claim for make-whole relief, and directed the district court “to grant an equitable remedy [against the employer and insurer] equivalent to the promised increase in benefits to plaintiff.”
The decision was written by Judge Merritt, a senior judge who did not participate in the en banc decision in Rochow v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., 780 F.3d 364 (6th Cir. 2015), which rejected a claim for make-whole relief in the form of disgorgement of profits. The Stiso panel also included Judge Boggs, who was in the majority in Rochow, and Judge Stranch, who had issued the lengthy dissent in Rochow. Continue reading
We previously reported on Gabriel v. Alaska Electrical Pension Fund, 755 F.3d 647 (9th Cir. 2014), which addressed limits on make-whole relief under 1132(a)(3), and affirmed judgment for the plan fiduciary. That decision was a divided one, with a partial dissent by Judge Berzon. In December, the panel withdrew its earlier decision, and replaced it with a new decision, Gabriel v. Alaska Electrical Pension Fund, — F.3d –, 2014 WL 7139686 (9th Cir. Dec. 16, 2014). The new decision affirmed summary judgment on two of the three measures of damages, and remanded to the district court on the third. Continue reading
In 2011, the Supreme Court issued a major ERISA decision, Cigna Corp. v. Amara, 131 S.Ct. 1866 (2011), holding that courts could not reform an ERISA plan as part of a claim for benefits under 29 U.S.C. 1132(a)(1)(B), but could do so as an equitable remedy under 29 U.S.C. 1132(a)(3). The case involved a situation in which the district court had ruled that Cigna had misrepresented the terms of a new pension plan when asking employees with vested rights in an outgoing plan to accept transfer. The district court had reformed the plan under 1132(a)(1)(B) to provide the benefits Cigna had promised; the Supreme Court held that the district court had used the wrong section of ERISA as the basis for its ruling.The Supreme Court then remanded for further consideration under the rules and limitations it had announced.
Amara v. CIGNA Corp., 775 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2014), presumably is the final decision in this long-running dispute. Continue reading
In 2013, the 6th Circuit made waves in the ERISA world when it held that LINA could be ordered to disgorge almost $3 million in profits it allegedly made on benefits it had improperly withheld, on top of payment of the benefits themselves. A few months later, the court granted LINA’s petition for en banc review, and vacated the 2013 decision .
Last week a divided 6th Circuit vacated the disgorgement of profits in a ruling that restores sanity to ERISA benefits litigation. Continue reading
In Santomenno ex rel. John Hancock Trust v. John Hancock Life Ins. Co. (U.S.A), — F.3d –, 2014 WL 4783665 (3d Cir. Sept. 26, 2014), the plaintiffs, who were participants in employer-sponsored 401(k) benefit plans, claimed that John Hancock, an administrator that provided investment services to plans, breached its fiduciary duty by allegedly charging the retirement plans excessive fees. Continue reading
In Gabriel v. Alaska Electrical Pension Fund, 755 F.3d 647 (9th Cir. 2014), a venal claimant met a not-very competent plan administrator, and the result was a helpful discussion of limits on make-whole equitable claims. [Note, on December 16, 2014, the Ninth Circuit panel withdrew this opinion, and replaced it with a new one, at 773 F.3d 945] Continue reading
In a recent decision involving fiduciary duties in Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs), the Supreme Court emphasized an important limit on the pre-eminence of the plan document. Recent Supreme Court decisions, primarily in the welfare benefit plan context, have emphasized the primary importance of the plan document in establishing a fiduciary’s obligations and a participant’s rights.
It’s not often that an ERISA issue gets prominent play in the press, but a recent article by Gretchen Morgenson is an exception. A Lone Ranger of the 401(k)’s began:
The arithmetic could not be simpler. The more fees you pay in your 401(k) plan, the less cash you’ll have for retirement.
Still, fees hidden from view can make it hard for 401(k) holders to find out what they are paying. Plan sponsors, usually an employer, have a fiduciary duty to safeguard workers’ retirement accounts. But sponsors don’t always push providers like mutual funds to reduce fees or cut costs.
That may be about to change. On March 19, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis affirmed a lower-court ruling in one of the first 401(k) fee cases to go to trial. In that case, the court found that ABB Inc., a power and automation technology company, failed to monitor its plan’s internal costs and paid excessive fees by not negotiating for rebates from investment companies whose funds were offered in the plan. This, the court said, violated ABB’s fiduciary duties to the 401(k) participants
The Sixth Circuit has just taken an “unprecedented and extraordinary step to expand the scope of ERISA coverage” (in the words of the dissent) by affirming a judgment directing a disability insurer to pay about $900,000 in improperly denied benefits plus disgorge an additional $3,800,000, representing profits it allegedly made on the benefits. I agree with the dissent; this represents a significant expansion of potential liability for ERISA fiduciaries in the Sixth Circuit. Continue reading