Last August, we summarized the string of cases filed against fiduciaries of401(k) plans that offer the BlackRock target date funds (TDFs) as investment options to plan participants. All of the complaints were nearly identical...more
On May 11, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Santos-Zacaria v. Garland, No. 21-1436, reversing the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and holding that the requirement that immigration petitioners challenging orders of removal...more
In Walsh v. Alight Solutions, LLC, — F.4th —, 2022 WL 3334450 (7th Cir. Aug. 12, 2022), the Seventh Circuit affirmed a district court order requiring Alight Solutions to produce documents in response to a Department of Labor...more
On August 29, 2022, the Seventh Circuit decided Albert v. Oshkosh Corporation, affirming a district court’s dismissal of breach of fiduciary claims related to Oshkosh Corporation’s management of its 401(k) plan, and striking...more
On February 23, 2022, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas invalidated portions of Part II of the interim final rule (“IFR”) issued by the U.S. Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor,...more
The First Circuit recently held that it is inappropriate to apply any kind of “presumption in favor of accident” in cases involving claims under accidental death and dismemberment (AD&D) policies, even in cases transferred...more
The board of directors of Bowers + Kubota Consulting, Inc. recently won an employee stock ownership plan (ESOP) fiduciary/breach case brought against them by the Department of Labor. See Walsh v. Bowers, et al., No....more
On June 14, 2021, the Department of Labor (DOL) issued “Information Letter 06-14-2021,” providing guidance to plan fiduciaries on their duty to disclose and produce recordings or transcripts of phone calls between benefit...more
On June 21, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court decided National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Alston, unanimously holding that the NCAA’s restrictions on education-related benefits for college athletes violates federal...more
On June 1, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Garland v. Ming Dai, overruling the Ninth Circuit’s longstanding “deemed-true-or-credible” rule that required reviewing courts to treat noncitizens’ testimony as credible and...more
6/4/2021
/ Administrative Review ,
Asylum ,
Board of Immigration Appeals ,
Credibility ,
Foreign Nationals ,
Garland v Ming Dai ,
Immigration and Nationality Act ,
Refugees ,
SCOTUS ,
Standard of Review ,
Substantial Evidence Standard
On May 20, 2021, a federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota dismissed breach of fiduciary duty claims against UnitedHealth Group, holding that participants in ERISA-governed, employer-sponsored...more
On May 24, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Guam v. United States, holding that contribution under CERCLA does not arise until there is a CERCLA-specific liability, even if there is a settlement that resolves liability...more
5/27/2021
/ CERCLA ,
Clean Water Act ,
Clean-Up Costs ,
Consent Decrees ,
Contribution Claims ,
Cost Recovery ,
Environmental Liability ,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ,
Environmental Remediation Costs ,
Guam ,
Guam v United States ,
Hazardous Waste ,
SCOTUS ,
Statute of Limitations ,
U.S. Navy
The Southern District of Texas has dismissed breach of fiduciary duty claims against Fidelity Investments, holding that participant data is not a plan asset and that Fidelity did not improperly use that data. Harmon v. Shell...more
On June 1, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Thole v. U.S. Bank N.A., holding that participants in a defined-benefit pension plan who have so far been paid all of their pension benefits lack Article III standing to sue for...more
6/2/2020
/ 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
As described in our May 1 blog post, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Employee Benefits Security Administration, the Department of Labor (DOL), and the Internal Revenue Service, the Department of the Treasury...more
On February 26, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Intel Corporation Investment Policy Committee v. Sulyma, holding that, for purposes of ERISA’s three-year statute of limitations, a plan beneficiary does not have “actual...more
2/28/2020
/ Actual or Constructive Knowledge ,
Appeals ,
Breach of Duty ,
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) ,
Fiduciary Duty ,
Intel Corp. Investment Policy Committee v. Sulyma ,
Material Disclosures ,
Question of Fact ,
Reaffirmation ,
Retirement Plan ,
Retirement Plan Beneficiaries ,
Reversal ,
SCOTUS ,
Split of Authority ,
Statute of Limitations ,
Summary Judgment
On February 25, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Monasky v. Taglieri, holding that the determination of a child’s “habitual residence” for purposes of the Hague Convention depends on a totality-of-the-circumstances...more
2/27/2020
/ Appeals ,
Child Abduction ,
Child Custody ,
Clear Error Standard ,
Custody Agreements ,
Domestic Violence ,
Expedited Actions Process ,
Habitual Residence ,
Hague Convention ,
Italy ,
Monasky v Taglieri ,
Petition for Return of Child ,
Question of Fact ,
Reaffirmation ,
SCOTUS ,
Split of Authority ,
Standard of Review ,
Totality of Circumstances Test ,
United States ,
Wrongful Removal
On June 3, 2019, the Supreme Court decided Taggart v. Lorenzen, No. 18-489, holding that a court may hold a creditor in civil contempt for violating a bankruptcy court’s discharge order as long as there is “no fair ground of...more
6/5/2019
/ Appeals ,
Attorney's Fees ,
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) ,
Bankruptcy Code § 524(a) ,
Bankruptcy Discharge Order ,
Chapter 7 ,
Civil Contempt Orders ,
Concurrent Litigation ,
Creditors ,
Dischargeable Debts ,
Injunctive Relief ,
Money Judgment ,
Reasonable Belief Test ,
Remand ,
Reversal ,
SCOTUS ,
Standard of Review ,
Statutory Violations ,
Taggart v Lorenzen ,
Vacated
On May 13, 2019, the Supreme Court decided Apple Inc. v. Pepper, No. 17-204, holding that iPhone owners who purchase apps from Apple’s App Store are “direct purchasers” from Apple and may sue Apple for alleged monopolization...more
5/14/2019
/ Antitrust Violations ,
Appeals ,
Apple Inc v Pepper ,
Class Action ,
Direct Purchasers ,
Dismissals ,
Internet Retailers ,
iPhone ,
Mobile Apps ,
Monopolization ,
Reversal ,
SCOTUS