In surprising news for the California county retirement system community, on April 17, 2024, the California Supreme Court granted review of Ventura County Employees’ Retirement Ass’n v. Criminal Justice Attorney’s Ass’n of...more
On March 27, 2024, after nearly a decade of dispute and five years of litigation, the First District Court of Appeal unanimously rejected all claims that a participating employer brought against the Alameda County Employees’...more
UPDATE: On January 18, 2024, the Second DCA responded to requests for publication of its decision discussed in our last eAlert on this topic (below) and certified the decision for publication. This is an important next step...more
On January 4, 2024, the Second District Court of Appeal, Division 6, unanimously rejected the first lawsuit challenging a county retirement board’s implementation of the California Supreme Court’s Alameda decision (VCERA v....more
The constitutionality of California’s felony forfeiture statute, as applied by the Board of Administration of the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS), survived yet another challenge in September 2023,...more
On September 21, 2023, a federal judge in Texas granted summary judgment in, and thus dismissed, a lawsuit filed by the Attorneys General of 25 states and other interested parties challenging a final rule issued by the U.S....more
9/26/2023
/ Department of Labor (DOL) ,
Employee Benefits ,
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) ,
Environmental Social & Governance (ESG) ,
Fiduciary ,
Fiduciary Duty ,
Final Rules ,
Financial Services Industry ,
Investment Adviser ,
Investment Management ,
Investment Opportunities ,
Pensions ,
Retirement Plan
Congress recently passed the SECURE 2.0 Act of 2022. Building on the Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement Act of 2019, SECURE 2.0 attempts to expand retirement plan coverage and increase retirement savings...more
On February 15, 2023, changes to Actuarial Standard of Practice (ASOP) No. 4 will be effective, and defined benefit plans will need to comply with these new rules in all actuarial funding valuations with measurement dates...more
On November 8, 2021, a decade-plus court battle concerning whether a public pension system and its board of retirement violated their fiduciary duties when making certain actuarial and reserving decisions following the Great...more
All public pension plans need a well-crafted fiduciary liability insurance policy. This should include ample coverage, including protection against the risk of impending litigation. The recent ruling by the U.S. Court of...more
7/9/2021
/ Breach of Contract ,
Declaratory Relief ,
Denial of Insurance Coverage ,
Duty to Defend ,
Fiduciary Duty ,
Fiduciary Liability Insurance ,
Insurance Claims ,
Insurance Industry ,
Insurance Litigation ,
Pensions ,
Policy Exclusions ,
Public Pension ,
Retirement ,
Retirement Plan
On September 23, 2020, the California Supreme Court issued orders in each of the four cases it had accepted for review but deferred pending its resolution of Alameda County Deputy Sheriff's Association, et al. v. Alameda...more
9/28/2020
/ CA Supreme Court ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Contracts Clause ,
Estoppel ,
Felons ,
Forfeiture ,
Forfeiture Statutes ,
Pensions ,
Public Employees ,
Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act of 2013 (PEPRA) ,
Retirement Plan ,
State Constitutions
In a landmark decision of a unanimous court, on July 30, 2020, the California Supreme Court issued its second case in two years on the scope of the “California Rule,” Alameda County Deputy Sheriff’s Assoc. et al., v. Alameda...more
8/4/2020
/ CA Supreme Court ,
Compensation & Benefits ,
Deferred Compensation ,
Employee Benefits ,
Equitable Estoppel ,
Pensions ,
Public Employees ,
Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act of 2013 (PEPRA) ,
Public Pension ,
Retirement Plan ,
Settlement Agreements ,
State Constitutions
The United States Supreme Court recently reviewed the federal constitutional standing requirements for members of a private defined-benefit pension plan who alleged that the plan trustees violated their fiduciary duties. ...more
6/11/2020
/ Article III ,
Breach of Duty ,
Defined Benefit Plans ,
Duty of Loyalty ,
Duty of Prudence ,
Employee Benefits ,
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) ,
Fiduciary Duty ,
Injury-in-Fact ,
Investment Adviser ,
Mismanagement ,
Pensions ,
Plan Participants ,
Retirement Plan ,
SCOTUS ,
Standing ,
Thole v U.S. Bank
Please join our Public Pensions & Investments Group for our webinar, "Legal Consequences of Shelter-in-Place Orders and Beyond for Public Pensions Systems," on May 7, 2020.
As COVID-19 continues to transform the private...more
4/28/2020
/ Construction Industry ,
Continuing Legal Education ,
Coronavirus/COVID-19 ,
Investment Management ,
Investors ,
Private Funds ,
Public Pension ,
Real Estate Investments ,
Remote Working ,
Retirement ,
Retirement Funds ,
Retirement Plan ,
Trustees ,
Webinars
On April 15, 2020, the California Supreme Court scheduled oral argument in the much-anticipated California Supreme Court public retirement case, Alameda County Deputy Sheriff's Association, et al. v. Alameda County Employees'...more
On December 12, 2019, the California Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District handed down a unanimous decision in Luke v. County of Sonoma, Sonoma County Employees’ Retirement Association, et al., affirming the...more
12/17/2019
/ Appeals ,
CalSTRS ,
Compensation & Benefits ,
Employee Benefits ,
Pensions ,
Public Employees ,
Public Pension ,
Retirement Plan ,
State and Local Government ,
Statute of Limitations ,
Time-Barred Claims
In a much awaited announcement, on November 8, 2018, the California Supreme Court scheduled oral argument in CalFire Local 2881, et al. v. CalPERS, et al., which is the first of the five pending vested rights cases that are...more
11/12/2018
/ CA Supreme Court ,
CalPERS ,
Compensation & Benefits ,
Employee Benefits ,
Litigation Strategies ,
Oral Argument ,
Pensions ,
Public Employees ,
Public Pension ,
Retirement Plan ,
State and Local Government ,
Vested Rights Doctrine
The evolution of vested rights jurisprudence in California is far from over, with the Second District Court of Appeal (“DCA”) stepping into the fray with its June 19, 2018 decision, Hipsher v. Los Angeles County Employees...more
In the latest state appellate decision addressing the constitutionality of the California Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act of 2013 (“PEPRA”) and other recent pension reform legislation, Division One of the First District...more
3/28/2018
/ Appeals ,
Compensation & Benefits ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Employee Benefits ,
Estoppel ,
Judges ,
Pensions ,
Popular ,
Public Employees ,
Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act of 2013 (PEPRA) ,
Public Pension ,
Retirement Plan ,
State and Local Government ,
Vested Benefits
In the latest twist in California’s pending vested rights litigation, parties on all sides of Alameda County Deputy Sheriff’s Assn. et al v. Alameda County Employees’ Retirement Assn., et al. (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 61...more
In a victory for the San Bernardino County Employees’ Retirement Association (“SBCERA”) and the nineteen other county retirement systems administered under the County Employees Retirement Law of 1937 (Gov. Code, § 31450 et...more
On December 30, 2016, Division Three of the First District Court of Appeal (“DCA”) issued a unanimous published decision in Cal FIRE Local 2881, et al. v. CalPERS, et al. (Dec. 30, 2016, A142793) (“CalFIRE Decision”)...more
1/5/2017
/ Appeals ,
CA Supreme Court ,
CalPERS ,
Compensation & Benefits ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Pensions ,
Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act of 2013 (PEPRA) ,
Public Pension ,
Retirement Plan ,
Service Credits ,
Vested Benefits
On Aug. 17, 2016, Division Two of the First District Court of Appeal issued a unanimous published decision in MAPE et al. v. MarinCERA, et al. (Aug.17, 2016, A139610) upholding the constitutionality of certain aspects of the...more
On August 17, 2016, Division Two of the First District Court of Appeal issued a unanimous published decision in MAPE et al. v. MCERA, et al. (August 17, 2016, A139610) ___ Cal.App. 4th ___, ___ Cal.Rptr.3d___ [2016 WL...more
The recent decision in Fry v. City of Los Angeles (California Second District Court of Appeal Case No. B259791, March 7, 2016) held, after careful parsing of the language in the City Charter and the applicable City...more