Pension Benefits

Subscribe to Pension Benefits via RSS

As discussed in an earlier post on this blog, in Intel Corporation Investment Policy Committee et al. v. Sulyma, No. 18-1116 (Feb. 26, 2020), the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the statute of limitations for breach of fiduciary duty lawsuits under ERISA.  In general, fiduciary breach claims are covered by the 6-year statute of limitations in 29 U.S.C. § 1113(1).  However, there is a 3-year statute of limitations if the plaintiff had “actual knowledge” of the breach.  29 U.S.C. § 1113(2).  Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Alito held that “actual knowledge” “does in fact mean what it says.”  According to the Justice, under this standard a plaintiff must be actually aware of the fiduciary breach – not merely have information from which he or she could have become aware of the violation – for the 3-year statute of limitations to start running.

The allegations in Sulyma may help plan sponsors, administrators, and other plan fiduciaries understand the impacts of Justice Alito’s opinion.
Continue Reading Supreme Court’s Sulyma Decision May Complicate Plan Administrators’ Consideration of the DOL’s New Proposed Electronic Safe Harbor Disclosure Rule

As we approach the end of the year and mid-term elections, expectations for meaningful policy from a lame duck Congress are at a record low. Surprisingly, however, the earlier passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (commonly referred to as “Tax Reform”) resulted in an unsettled desire among those in the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate to accomplish something rare – bipartisan legislation improving retirement and savings for millions of Americans.

The two pieces of legislation that have bipartisan support are the Retirement Enhancement and Savings Act (RESA) and the Family Savings Act of 2018 (FSA).
Continue Reading Could We See Retirement Reform in a Lame Duck Congress?

In Munro v. University of Southern California, No. 17-55550, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 20522 (9th Cir. July 24, 2018), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that employees alleging an ERISA breach of fiduciary duty claim against their employer based on the employer’s administration of defined-contribution plans may not be compelled to arbitrate their collective claims under the terms of the arbitration clause in their employment contracts because their claims were brought on behalf of the plans and not on their own behalf.

The lawsuit was brought by nine current and former USC employees. The employees alleged that USC breached its fiduciary duty under ERISA in administering two defined-contribution plans – the USC Retirement Savings Program and the USC Tax-Deferred Annuity Plan (the “Plans”). The employees sought financial and equitable remedies to benefit the Plans and all affected participants and beneficiaries, including “a determination as to the method of calculating losses, removal of breaching fiduciaries, a full accounting of Plan losses, reformation of the Plans, and an order regarding appropriate future investments.”
Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Holds That Employees’ ERISA Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claim Against Their Employer is Not Subject to the Mandatory Arbitration Clause in Their Employment Contracts

In the world of ERISA litigation, one of the safest bets is usually that, if an employer establishes something that it calls a “plan,” and the plan allows a significant number of its employees to obtain money after retirement, ERISA is going to govern. Sure, there are situations where the employer is exempt from ERISA (it may be a governmental entity or affiliated with a church), but those exceptions are generally easy to spot.

However, Pasternack v. Shrader, 863 F.3d 162 (2d Cir. 2017), is a reminder of the risks of drawing such automatic conclusions, because sometimes a plan is just a plan. Pasternack essentially held that, when the primary purpose of a stock ownership plan was something other than deferring income or providing retirement income, ERISA may not govern.  Though the Court asserted that the distinction between a pension plan and one that offered present benefits was “crisp and unambiguous,” one might be forgiven for harboring doubt that the line is as well-defined as the Court believed.
Continue Reading A stock plan is not necessarily an ERISA plan

On May 22, 2017, Department of Labor (DOL) Secretary Alexander Acosta announced in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal that the DOL will not issue another delay of the “fiduciary rule,” set to become generally effective on June 9, 2017. Secretary Acosta stated on Monday evening that “[w]e have carefully considered the…

As ordered by President Trump in a presidential memorandum (the “Memorandum”) on February 3, 2017, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) proposed a 60-day delay to the “fiduciary rule,” which revised the definition of “fiduciary” for retirement investment advice purposes. The rule was originally set to become effective on April 10, 2017; however, after receiving…

In Prime Healthcare Servs. – Landmark LLC v. United Nurses & Allied Prof’ls, Local 5067, 848 F.3d 41 (1st Cir. 2017), the First Circuit ruled that an arbitration agreement required the arbitrator to determine whether ERISA preempted the claims at issue.

Plaintiff purchased a financially troubled hospital that had a pension plan, and a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with defendant. The CBA contained a broad arbitration provision. After the acquisition, the pension plan was terminated by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. (PBGC), and the defendant union sought arbitration of its grievance that the termination violated the CBA. Ultimately, the district court ruled that the union’s claims were preempted by ERISA.

The Court noted that courts will determine questions of arbitrability only when there is a dispute of “substantive arbitrability” – whether the parties are bound by an arbitration clause, or whether the particular clause governs a particular type of controversy. “Procedural arbitrability” questions, in contrast, are presumptively determined by the arbitrator; these questions include things like defenses of waiver, delay, or any other procedural rule that grows out of the dispute and bears on its final disposition.
Continue Reading First Circuit rules that ERISA preemption of claim is an arbitrable issue

As ordered by President Trump in last month’s presidential memorandum (the “Memorandum”), the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) proposed a 60-day delay to its conflict of interest rule (commonly referred to as the “fiduciary rule”). The effective date of the fiduciary rule, which revised the definition of a “fiduciary” for retirement investment advice purposes, is currently April 10, 2017. In addition to a general 15-day comment period, the DOL is also accepting comments until April 16, 2017 on the Memorandum itself and on issues applicable to whether or not the fiduciary rule should be revised, revoked, or further delayed.
Continue Reading DOL Calls For Delay of the Fiduciary Rule

Lee v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc., — F.3d –, 2016 WL 4926159 (5th Cir. Sept. 15, 2016), held that a defined benefit pension plan participant does not have Article III standing to challenge the plan’s alleged violation of ERISA, in the absence of “concrete injury” to himself.

The case is a putative class action growing out of an amendment to Verizon’s pension plan that terminated it for retirees and replaced it with an annuity. One of the claims asserted fiduciary misconduct in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 1109(a), which requires a fiduciary to “make good … any losses to the plan” from a breach of duty. In an unreported 2015 decision, 623 Fed.Appx. 132 (5th Cir. 2015) (Lee 2015), the court had affirmed the dismissal of that claim for lack of standing. Lee 2015 had held that, though the plaintiff had statutory standing to assert a violation of ERISA by a plan fiduciary, he did not have Article III standing because “standing for defined-benefit plan participants requires imminent risk of default by the plan, such that the participant’s benefits are adversely affected,” and he had not alleged any likelihood of such injury.

The plaintiff petitioned for certiorari, and the Supreme Court granted the petition and vacated Lee 2015 and remanded it for reconsideration in light of Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S.Ct. 1540 (2016). Spokeo had addressed the question whether and when a statutory violation satisfied the concrete harm required for Article III standing.  
Continue Reading “Bare violation” of ERISA without concrete injury does not confer standing

Hunter v. Berkshire Hathaway, Inc., 829 F.3d 357, 358 (5th Cir. 2016), involved the interpretation of parties’ rights and obligations regarding a pension plan following a corporate acquisition. Its discussion of the extent to which an employer can obligate itself not to change a plan, even when benefits are not vested, is noteworthy.
Continue Reading Extra-ERISA contractual obligation regarding pension plan is enforceable