Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a number of significant ERISA cases. In its 2013-14 term, the Supreme Court decided two ERISA-based appeals – Fifth Third Bancorp. v. Dudenhoeffer and Heimeshoff v. Hartford Life & Acc. Ins. Co. In the current 2014-15 term, the Supreme Court already issued one ERISA decision in M&G Polymers USA, LLC v. Tackett, and will issue another ERISA decision soon in Tibble v. Edison Int’l. Although these four cases have received much attention within the ERISA community, each year there are hundreds of other decisions issued by federal appellate and district courts that also impact a plan sponsor’s daily administration of welfare and retirement plans. In fact, many of these district court and appellate decisions are interpreting issues raised or addressed in these Supreme Court opinions. This article will address a few of these cases, which may not have received a lot of attention by the press, but could have long-lasting impacts on plan administration and litigation in future years.

Amara v. Cigna Corp. – Plan Reformation as an Available ERISA Remedy -

Late in 2014, yet another decision was issued in a long-running dispute between Cigna Corporation and a class of its pension plan participants. Amara v. Cigna Corp. was originally filed in 2001 and arose from certain allegedly misleading communications made by the employer related to its pension plan, specifically the effects of a 1998 conversion of the company’s defined benefit pension plan to a cash balance plan. In 2008, after a bench trial, the district court held that the defendants had failed to provide notice of a significant reduction in the rate of future accruals in the cash balance formula in violation of ERISA Section 204(h). On the issue of appropriate relief for the violation, the district court held that, pursuant to ERISA Section 502(a)(1)(B), defendants were required to provide the participants with benefits that accrued under the old defined benefit formula (Part A) plus the benefits that accrued under the cash balance formula (Part B) – or Part A + Part B (A+B) benefits – and to issue a new notice under ERISA Section 204(h). On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a summary order affirming the judgment.

Originally published in Pension & Benefits Daily on March 20, 2015.