"[T]he 3rd Circuit held that '[t]o succeed under a catalyst theory of recovery, evidence that judicial activity encouraged the defendant to settle is not necessary. All that is necessary is that litigation activity pressured a defendants to settle or render a plaintiff the requested relief.' ... ERISA plans may [now] become less likely to settle marginal claims out of concern that even a nuisance value settlement may open the doors to a fee award. While some ERISA plans routinely settle smaller cases because it makes business sense to do so, that may no longer be the case when attorney's fees are factored into the equation. In addition, ERISA plans may become less likely to increase early settlement offers in order to minimize the likelihood of being accused of having 'changed position.' " [Templin v. Independence Blue Cross, No. 13-4493 (3d Cir. May 8, 2015)]