PODCAST: Williams Mullen's Benefits Companion - Best Practices for Reducing ERISA Litigation Risk
ERISA Claims: How Can Benefits Be An Employer’s Burden?
Employers navigating the complexities of the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act ("MHPAEA") may find themselves questioning the true impact of the federal government's recently issued nonenforcement policy. This...more
If there’s a Mount Rushmore of ERISA class-action litigators, you better believe Jerry Schlichter’s face is carved into it—probably right next to a 408(b)(2) disclosure and a stack of mutual fund fee charts. And once again,...more
Following a jury’s decision to award over $38 million to a class of more than 26,000 participants in Pentegra’s multiple employer plan, the issue of working with providers affiliated with the plan sponsor highlights the...more
On January 10, 2025, in Spence v. American Airlines, a federal district court in Texas ruled that American Airlines (the company) and the committee overseeing its 401(k) plans (the committee) breached their duty of loyalty...more
Look, I get it. There are a lot of lawyers out there. Ambulance chasers, courtroom showmen, legal eagles with late-night TV spots and suspiciously white teeth. But here’s the thing: I’m not one of them....more
Excessive fee cases against plans governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) have been on the rise for the last decade. ERISA litigation is expanding with novel theories such as forfeiture litigation....more
We recently reported on a district court decision holding that the Central States Pension Fund’s calculation of withdrawal liability should not have included contribution rate increases imposed after the Fund’s implementation...more
On Thursday, April 17, a unanimous Supreme Court held that a less demanding pleading standard is applicable when plaintiffs bring an Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) class action under ERISA Section...more
Certain transactions between employee benefit plans and “parties in interest” are prohibited under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA). ...more
In recent years, prescription drug prices have been top-of-mind for state legislators, who have responded by passing laws that seek to control that pricing in a variety of ways, including by regulating pharmacy benefit...more
Under the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Cunningham v. Cornell University, No. 23-1007 (April 17, 2025), plaintiffs asserting that ERISA plan administrators engaged in prohibited transactions under ERISA Section 406 are...more
In Cunningham v. Cornell University,1 the Supreme Court unanimously held that plaintiffs who bring a prohibited transaction claim under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (“ERISA”) are only...more
This month’s Friday Five explores decisions from around the country discussing the concept of reasonableness in various forms. One court rejected the parties’ proffered definitions of the term “working” and instead determined...more
Many sponsors and fiduciaries of ERISA retirement plans had been hoping that the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion in Cunningham v. Cornell University (No. 23-1007) would articulate new pleading standards that would slow the...more
On April 17, 2025, the Supreme Court of the United States clarified the pleading requirements to bring a prohibited-transaction claim under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) in Cunningham v....more
The April Monthly Minute showers readers with some eye-opening case law updates, ranging from a $38.8M jury verdict in a 401(k) fee case, to a pair of cases involving Elevance (f/k/a Anthem) health plan coverage exclusions....more
On April 17, the Supreme Court unanimously resolved a circuit split in Cunningham v. Cornell University, holding that plan participants need only allege that fiduciaries engaged in a “prohibited transaction” under the...more
On April 17, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion, resolved a circuit split and established a plaintiff-friendly pleading standard for ERISA prohibited transaction claims in Cunningham v. Cornell University,...more
The US Supreme Court has issued a unanimous opinion that could lead to an increase in litigation for prohibited transaction claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA)....more
On April 17, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision that dealt a blow to benefit plan fiduciaries nationwide. The Court unanimously held in Cunningham v. Cornell University that a plaintiff asserting that a plan and...more
On April 17, 2025, the Supreme Court decided Cunningham v. Cornell University, unanimously holding that a plaintiff can state a valid claim under ERISA by merely alleging that a plan used “plan assets” to pay a service...more
On April 17, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion on the requirements for plaintiffs to survive a motion to dismiss regarding an allegation that plan fiduciaries engaged in a prohibited transaction under...more
In Central States, Se. & W. Areas Pension Fund v. Laguna Dairy, S. de R.L. de C.V., No. 23-3206 (3d Cir. 2025 Mar. 27, 2025), the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (“Third Circuit”) reversed the district...more
On April 17, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion in Cunningham v Cornell University, addressing the pleading standard applicable to prohibited transaction claims under the Employee Retirement Income...more
In a decision poised to change the landscape of Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) litigation, on April 17, 2025, the Supreme Court held in Cunningham et al. v. Cornell University et al. that a claimant...more