-
Chao v. Meixner • PDF Version • July
11, 2008
DOL argued that the fiduciaries of a health benefit plan are not
entitled to a jury trial in DOL's lawsuit under ERISA section
502(a)(2) in which DOL seeks to recover the plan's monetary losses
caused by the defendants' alleged fiduciary misconduct because the
remedy sought is equitable in nature.
-
Sowers v. FreightCar America • June
6, 2008
DOL argued that the district court's order granting a preliminary
injunction reinstating a class of participants to their employment at
a FreightCar plan grants equitable relief within the meaning of ERISA
section 502(a)(3).
-
McLemore v. Regions Bank • PDF Version • May 5, 2008
DOL argued that: (1) an ERISA fiduciary who is also
the bankruptcy trustee has standing to bring an ERISA action and;
(2) the defense of in pari delicto
cannot be asserted against an ERISA successor trustee.
-
Hecker v. Deere • PDF Version • April 2,
2008
DOL argued that: (1) ERISA section 404(c) does not
provide a defense to plaintiffs' allegations that the defendants
imprudently and disloyally selected investment choices with
excessive fees; (2) fiduciaries' duties to disclose
material information can arise from their core statutory duties of
prudence and loyalty, not just from specific reporting and
disclosure requirements; and (3) the district court erred in
holding that defendants were not fiduciaries with respect to the
selection of funds based solely on the plan documents without
regard to the defendants' actions.
-
Golden Gate Restaurant Ass'n v. City
and County of San Francisco • PDF Version • March 27, 2008
DOL argued that the employer spending requirements in San Francisco's
Health Care Security Ordinance have a prohibited connection with ERISA
plans and are preempted because: (1) they mandate employee benefit
structures or their administration because employers can comply
with the law's requirements only be establishing or maintaining
ERISA plans; and (2) the spending requirements
interfere with uniform plan administration.
-
Grabek v. Northrop Grumman
Corp. • PDF Version • February 5, 2008
DOL argued that the district court improperly denied class
certification where (1) the reasons for denial were unknown, and (2)
the district court failed to provide any analysis.
-
Lively v. Dynegy • PDF Version • October
10, 2007
DOL argued that: (1) Plaintiffs' claim alleging that
the Defendants' imprudence with regard to the company stock fund
caused plan losses is a derivative claim on behalf of the plan
under ERISA sections 409 and 502(a)(2); (2) given the nature of a section
502(a)(2) claim, purported intra-class conflicts do not defeat a
finding under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) that the prerequisites of a
class action have been met; and (3) ERISA section 404(c) does not
provide a defense to Plaintiffs' allegations that the fiduciaries
imprudently maintained the company stock fund.
-
Evans v. Akers • PDF Version • August 8,
2007
DOL argued that a former employee who has received a distribution of
benefits from his defined contribution pension plan has standing to
sue for fiduciary breaches that occurred prior to distribution.
-
Pfahler v. National Latex Products
Co. • PDF Version • March 21, 2007
DOL argued that: (1) the fiduciaries of a
self-insured health plan had a duty to enforce the employer's
obligation to contribute sufficient funds to a claims account to
pay health claims; (2) the fiduciaries diverted
participant contributions to pay the employer's general creditors
and failed to enforce ERISA sections 502(a)(2) and 409(a); and (3)
the participants may recover an
amount equal to their unpaid health claims under ERISA section
502(a)(3) from the fiduciaries who misrepresented that the claims
would be paid.
-
Tullis v. UMB Bank • PDF Version • March
6, 2007
DOL argued that participants in a defined contribution plan may sue
under ERISA section 502(a)(2) for losses to their defined contribution
plan caused by fiduciary breaches, notwithstanding that those losses
will be allocated only to their individual accounts.
-
Harzewski v. Guidant Corp. • PDF Version • December 28, 2006
DOL argued that a former employee who has received a benefit
distribution from a pension has standing to sue for fiduciary breaches
that occurred prior to the distribution.
-
Rogers v. Baxter International,
Inc. • December 8, 2006
DOL argued that ERISA section 502(a)(2) confers standing on persons
seeking monetary relief for a defined contribution plan due to an
alleged breach of fiduciary duty even though the relief will be
allocated only to a subset of participants in the plan.
-
Calpine Corporation • PDF Version • November
16, 2006
DOL argued that fiduciaries of a defined contribution pension plan
were not entitled to a presumption that they were prudent when they
continued to purchase employer stock after they became aware of
accounting irregularities concerning the company.
-
Retail Industry Leaders Ass'n v.
Felder • PDF Version • November 6, 2006
The Maryland Fair Share Health Care Fund Act is preempted because it
"relates to" employee benefit plans within the meaning of
ERISA section 514(a), by mandating that employers pay a certain level
of health care benefits to their employees or pay a penalty to the
State.
-
Howell v. Motorola, Inc. • PDF Version • November 1, 2006
DOL argued that a former participant of a 401(k) plan, who had
received a distribution of benefits, had standing to sue the
fiduciaries under ERISA section 502(a)(2) and the participant had a
"colorable claim for benefits" because the fiduciary
breaches allegedly occurred while he was actively enrolled in the
plan.
-
Bridges v. American Electric Power
Co. • PDF Version • October 19, 2006
DOL argued that a former participant, who received a distribution of
his 401(k) plan account had standing to sue based on his
"colorable claim for benefits."
-
Graden v. Conexant Systems,
Inc. • PDF Version • September 1, 2006
DOL argued that an employee who has taken his distribution from a
defined contribution plan has a "colorable claim for
benefits" and, therefore, standing to sue for fiduciary breaches
that occurred while he was in the plan because any losses recovered
will increase his vested benefits.
-
Kirschbaum v. Reliant Energy,
Inc. • PDF Version • August 16, 2006
DOL argued that the district court erred when it held that fiduciaries
of 401(k) plans have no discretion or fiduciary duty with regard to
employer stock funds because relevant plan documents require that they
offer the employer stock fund and that an employer match be made in
company stock.
-
Dickerson v. Feldman • PDF Version • July 17, 2006
DOL argued that a participant who received a distribution from a
defined contribution plan has standing to sue under ERISA sections 409
and 502(a)(2) to recover losses to the plan resulting from fiduciary
breaches that allegedly occurred while he was in the plan.
-
Woods v. Southern Co. • PDF Version • July 14, 2006
DOL argued that ERISA does not require plaintiff to exhaust internal
plan review procedures before bringing suit under sections 409(a) and
502(a)(2) for losses to a plan caused by fiduciary breaches; and
exhaustion is not required when a plan provides no procedures for
review of fiduciary breach claims, the reviewing fiduciary would have
been powerless to provide the loss remedy sought by plaintiffs, and
exhaustion of the review procedure provided by the plan would have
been futile.
-
LaRue v. DeWolff, Boberg &
Assocs., Inc. • PDF Version • July 12, 2006
DOL argued that the appellate panel erred when it held that a plan
participant seeking losses attributable to his 401(k) plan account
resulting from a fiduciary's failure to follow his investment
instruction may not sue for losses to the plan. The participant
alleged that there were fewer assets in the plan as a result of the
fiduciary breach and, therefore, he was authorized to sue under ERISA
sections 409 and 502(a)(2) which provide for recovery of "any
losses" to the plan.
-
Holtzscher v. Dynegy Inc. • PDF Version • June 28, 2006
DOL argued that former participants of a defined contribution pension
plan who have received their lump sum payments have standing to sue
for fiduciary breaches that caused losses to the plans before
termination; and former participants have colorable claims for
benefits because losses recovered by the plans will result in larger
benefit payments to them.
-
Vaughn v. Bay Environmental
Management Inc. • PDF Version • June 7, 2006
DOL argued that plaintiffs, who claim that fiduciary breaches caused a
diminution in the amount of benefits they were paid when the defendant
terminated the defined contribution plans in which they participated,
have standing to bring their suit. Plaintiffs have a colorable claim
that alleged fiduciary breaches have affected their plan benefits and
thus meet the statutory standing criteria. Termination of the plans
does not destroy standing.
-
Green
v. ExxonMobil Corp. • PDF Version • May 25, 2006
DOL argued (1) that ERISA section 502(a)(3) authorized an award of
make-whole monetary relief for a beneficiary against a breaching
fiduciary and (2) that a beneficiary may bring a lawsuit
simultaneously alleging that he is entitled to make-whole monetary
relief for fiduciary breaches resulting in a denial of the benefits.
-
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: (1) An action to enforce the terms
of a state anti-subrogation insurance statute is removable to
federal court under the "complete preemption" doctrine;
and (2) 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: (1) 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; (2) 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;
(3) 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; (4) 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; (5) 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; (6) That directed trustees cannot
follow directions that they know, or because of "red
flags" ought to know are imprudent or would otherwise violate
ERISA; (7) That participants may recover
monetary relief if they can prove that the fiduciaries breached
their duties with regard to the cash balance plan; and (8) -+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).
|
