BENEFITS LITIGATION UPDATE
A Quarterly Publication From Epstein Becker Green & The ERISA Industry Committee
Issue 5Winter 2014
All of us probably groan from time to time about the burdens of regulations
and compliance. We know that employee benefits are continually impacted by
the actions of all three branches of government. This communication and our
January 29 Benefits Litigation Update call focuses on some significant legal and
litigation developments regarding ERISA and benefit plans. 2013 was a busy year
for the courts in benefit cases or decisions that affected benefits. The Supreme
Court’s DOMA decision, the continued litigation concerning different aspects of
the Affordable Care Act (ACA), ongoing lawsuits regarding 401(k) fees and stock
drop disputes, and emerging case law relating to ERISA equitable remedies are all
matters that either directly impacted the design or administration of our plans or
caused us anxiety about possible future litigation risks. We have addressed some
of these issues in other forums over the last year and address some of them in this
issue of the Benefits Litigation Update.
As usual, we have partnered with our colleagues at Epstein Becker Green on this
issue and we appreciate their terrific contribution (as usual).
Additionally, ERIC has been active in filing amicus briefs in key cases involving
significant benefit policy issues. Last fall, we filed a brief with the Second Circuit
in the Foot Locker case urging the court to uphold a district court ruling in
favor of Foot Locker that held that there was no liability in situations involving
alleged participant misunderstandings of legitimate benefit provisions that were
communicated to participants. In December, we filed an amicus brief in the Quality
Stores case before the Supreme Court. That case involves a claim by the IRS that
FICA taxes should apply to severance plans. In early February, we will be filing a
brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in the Fifth Third Bancorp case involving the
application of the prudence presumption (i.e. the presumption that a sponsor or
fiduciary has acted prudently in maintaining/continuing an employer shares fund
in the absence of specific factual allegations to the contrary) in situations involving
a decrease in value (oftentimes only temporary) of employer shares.
In this issue of the Benefits Litigation Update, we review the possible interaction of
the ACA with the so-called non-discrimination/non-interference provision (Section
510) of ERISA, summarize the background and status of equitable remedies under
ERISA after the Supreme Court’s Amara decision several years ago, review the
late 2013 Supreme Court decision in the Heimeshoff case regarding statute of
limitations provisions set forth in plans, discuss the status of ongoing disputes
regarding 401(k) fees, and briefly mention several other key litigation developments.
A Short Message from ERIC President Scott Macey:
EXECUTIVE EDITORS
CONTRIBUTING EDITORS
Joan A. Disler
jdisler@ebglaw.com
Adam C. Solander
asolander@ebglaw.com
Scott J. Macey
smacey@eric.org
- FEATURED ARTICLES -
Will Section 510 of ERISA Restrict
Workforce Structuring under the
Affordable Care Act?
A New Threat to Sponsors
and Fiduciaries: Equitable
Remedies After Amara
First ERISA Decision From Supreme
Court This Term Strongly Endorses
Plan-Created Limitations Periods
For Benefit Claims
Class Action Fee Litigation
Continues to Plague Plan Sponsors
Fifth Third Bancorp, et al. v.
Dudenhoeffer et al.
Case No. 12-751 (Supreme Court)
NOTEWORTHY
PENDING CASE
- -
Debra A. Davis
ddavis@eric.org
Paul A. Friedman
pfriedman@ebglaw.com
John Houston Pope
jhpope@ebglaw.com
Jeffrey A. Lieberman
jlieberman@ebglaw.com
Kenneth J. Kelly
kkelly@ebglaw.com
