Bloomberg BNA's Pension & Benefits Blog is a special resource offered by Bloomberg BNA to provide commentary and insight on news and trends reported in our publications: Pension & Benefits Daily, Pension & Benefits Reporter, and the Benefits Practice Resource Center. The authors of the blog are members of our Benefits Practice Resource Advisory Board and members of staff (who contribute summaries of some of their recent stories).
The ideas presented here are those of individuals, and Bloomberg BNA bears no responsibility for the appropriateness or accuracy of the communications between group members. We reserve the right not to post comments that are abusive or otherwise objectionable.
Communications regarding the Pension & Benefits Blog may be directed to Dana Domone via e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org.
August 8, 2014
by Jacklyn Wille
Supreme Court's recent decision in Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer
accomplished something rare: It gave both employees and employers a reason to
February 19, 2014
Plan fee litigation had a
big year in 2013, with divisive appellate court decisions affecting standards
of judicial review, statutes of limitations and functional fiduciary status
that may open the door for increased and novel litigation, employee benefits
attorneys said during a conference panel presentation.
January 23, 2014
Several U.S. Supreme Court rulings
broke new ground for employee benefits in 2013, and decisions in 2014 are also
expected to push these issues into new territory. In addition to its landmark
ruling recognizing same-sex marriage under federal law, the U.S. Supreme Court
also issued two significant opinions under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act in 2013—one involving contractual limitations periods, and the
other involving Section 502(a)(3)'s equitable remedies provision.
December 2, 2013
Supreme Court should strike down the pro-fiduciary presumption of prudence that
some federal courts have used to shield fiduciaries of employer stock plans
from liability for declining share value, the U.S. solicitor general said in a
brief filed with the high court.
October 16, 2013
considering the date on which a disability plan's contractual limitations
period begins to run, the U.S. Supreme Court justices questioned attorneys on a
wide range of issues, including federal law preemption, equitable doctrines,
potential harm and the purpose of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act's
administrative exhaustion requirement.
October 2, 2010
by Andrew L. Oringer
With all the cases and articles swirling around the question of when there is a fiduciary duty to stop acquiring or to dispose of employer securities, and the recent oral arguments on the point before the Second Circuit, I'd like to set out a possible analytical framework, as follows:
May 25, 2010
The Supreme Court's decision in Hardt v. Reliance Standard should have been a reason to celebrate for participants and their lawyers (99 PBD, 5/25/10). The simple holding, that you don't have to be a prevailing party before a court can exercise its discretion to grant attorney's fees is unexceptionable. Their were no dissents. But the court seemed to be at pains to tie the decision to its facts. The participant was granted benefits by the plan on the remand. Did that matter?
May 5, 2010
Heart of my Hardt. I love that mel-o-dy.
April 26, 2010
"People make mistakes." Hand it to the Chief Justice, he's got an ear for a catch phrase. As BNA summarized the holding: "Employee Retirement Income Security Act plan administrators will not be stripped of deferential review by federal courts when they make a "single honest mistake" in administering and interpreting plans...." ( Conkright v. Frommert, U.S., No. 08-810, 4/21/10).
December 12, 2008
The insolvency (whether or not in Chapter 11 reorganization) of the three automakers brings “legacy costs” back to the center stage of ERISA cutback negotiation and litigation.
September 30, 2008
Today's decision on the merits by the 9th Circuit in the Golden Gate Restaurant Association v. San Francisco case upholding the employer spending requirements of the San Francisco ordinance as not preempted by ERISA is a most interesting read.
Initiative Gathers Section 409A Data For Compliance Check, IRS Official Says
Recent SCOTUS Benefit Decisions Pose New Questions for Litigation, Panelists Say
Overview of U.S. v. Windsor and its Effect on Employee Benefits
Dudenhoeffer Ruling Benefits Both Sides, Attorneys Who Argued Case Agree
Obstacles Loom for House Legislation On Frozen Retirement Plans, Speaker Says