|
-
WorldCom
Inc • PDF
Version • January 15, 2004
DOL argued that appointing officials have a duty to monitor the
fiduciaries they appoint and that plaintiffs do not have to plead the
elements of fraud to state a claim for breaches of fiduciary duty,
even when the alleged breaches involve claims of misrepresentation.
-
Millsap
v McDonnell-Douglas • PDF
Version • October 9, 2003
DOL argued that back pay is an available equitable remedy for a
violation of the anti-retaliation/discrimination provision in ERISA
section 510.
-
Bombardier
v Ferrer • PDF
Version • September 11, 2003
DOL argued that the imposition of a constructive trust over settlement
funds held in the trust account of an attorney for a participant is a
permissible form of "equitable relief" under the Supreme
Court's decision in Great-West Life Ins. Co. v Knudson. DOL also
argued that under the plan terms, the plan is entitled to be
reimbursed for the full amount expended, without an offset for the
amount that the participant expended on attorney's fees in obtaining
the third-party tort settlement.
-
Williams
Company • PDF
Version • August 21, 2003
DOL argued that those who have the power to appoint and remove plan
fiduciaries are themselves fiduciaries with an ongoing duty to monitor
those they appoint.
-
Callery
v US Life Insurance Co • PDF
Version • August 20, 2003
DOL filed an amicus curiae brief in support of the plaintiff arguing
that equitable relief under Section 502(a)(3) includes a recovery from
a fiduciary of any direct monetary losses caused by a fiduciary's
breach of its duties.
-
Arana
v Ochsner Health Plan Inc • PDF
Version • April 10, 2003
DOL argued that:
-
An action to enforce the terms
of a state anti-subrogation insurance statute is removable to
federal court under the "complete preemption" doctrine;
and
-
ERISA likewise completely
preempts an action to enforce the provisions of the state statute
that provide for penalties for improper or untimely benefit
determinations.
-
Gerosa
v Savasta • PDF
Version • November 1, 2002
The district court for the Southern District of New York held that
ERISA preempts a state law claim for malpractice brought by plan
trustees against actuaries to the plan, but provides a federal common
law claim for damages against such entities. DOL argued that the court
erred on both points.
-
Stern
v IBM • PDF
Version • October 15, 2002
The district court issued an order holding that IBM's sick leave
program constituted an ERISA plan, so that Stern's claim for breach of
contract actually stated a claim for ERISA benefits and therefore was
properly removed to federal court. DOL argued that under the
Secretary's "payroll practices" regulation, the sick leave
program is not an ERISA plan.
-
Mario
v P&C Food Markets • PDF
Version • September 10, 2002
DOL argued that a summary plan description need not contain
information concerning the discretion afforded the plan administrator
to interpret plan terms.
-
Tittle
v Enron Part 1 • Part
2 • PDF
Version • August 30, 2002
DOL argued that:
-
The duty to protect retirement
plans falls not only on the trustees who directly oversee the
plans, but also on top executives and officials who are
responsible for appointing the fiduciaries and monitoring their
performance;
-
If any of these fiduciaries were
aware or should have been aware that the employees were
misinformed about the stability of Enron stock, they had a duty to
take appropriate action to protect their retirement investments;
-
This could include investigating
allegations of accounting fraud, disclosing the true facts to plan
participants, the investing public and/or other fiduciaries, and
stopping further investment in employer stock;
-
Disclosing information about
accounting irregularities to the public, or refusing to purchase
more Enron stock and elimination it as an investment option, is
fully consistent with the securities laws, which forbid buying or
selling stock based on "inside information" that the
general public does not have;
-
That fiduciaries have an
obligation to ensure that investments in employer securities,
whether in a 401(k) plan or an ESOP, are prudent, notwithstanding
plan provisions that contemplate or favor such investments;
-
That directed trustees cannot
follow directions that they know, or because of "red
flags" ought to know are imprudent or would otherwise violate
ERISA;
-
That participants may recover
monetary relief if they can prove that the fiduciaries breached
their duties with regard to the cash balance plan;
-
That, even if it is a
non-fiduciary, Arthur Anderson may be liable for equitable relief
if it knowingly participated in the fiduciary breaches of others.
-
Harley
v 3M Rehearing • PDF
Version • May 22, 2002
DOL filed a brief in support of en banc and panel rehearing making the
same arguments as in the brief above.
-
Keen
v Weaver • PDF
Version • February 13, 2002
DOL argued that ERISA and the pension plan documents determine the
plaintiff's entitlement to benefits, and that the court should not
develop a federal common law that would supplant the written
designation rule.
-
Ostler
v Oce-USA Inc • PDF
Version • February 8, 2002
DOL argued that equitable relief within the meaning of Section
502(a)(3) of ERISA includes the recovery from a fiduciary of any
direct monetary loss caused by the fiduciary's breach of its
obligations.
-
Estate
of David Egelhoff • PDF
Version • June 26, 2001
DOL argued that ERISA and the pension plan documents determine the
plaintiff's entitlement to benefits, and that the court should not
develop a federal common law that would supplant the written
designation rule.
-
Benefits
Committee v Key Trust • PDF
Version • June 22, 2001
DOL argued that by remitting to the ESOP's sponsoring employer a
payment which the ESOP has no obligation to make under the terms of
the plan or otherwise, Key Trust clearly would violate its duty of
fiduciary loyalty and commit a prohibited transaction.
-
Harley
v 3M • PDF
Version • July 12, 2000
DOL filed a brief arguing that the district court erred in concluding
that the defined benefit pension plan suffered no loss because it was
over funded. DOL also argued that the district court erred in applying
the adequate consideration test in Section 408(b)(2) to the prohibited
transaction because the transaction involved self-dealing and was
prohibited by Section 406(b).
|
| |
|