Search the News Archive

DOL Office of the Solicitor's Brief for Secretary of Labor as amicus curia (PDF)

22 pages. Excerpt: The Court should grant en banc review because there is an intra and an inter-Circuit conflict concerning who is a proper defendant in a claim for benefits under ERISA section 502(a)(1)(B) [in Cyr v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company.]

Lively v. Dynegy -- Text of Amicus Brief of Import Filed by the DOL Office of the Solicitor (PDF)

39 pages. Brief Of The Secretary Of Labor, Elaine L. Chao, As Amicus Curiae In Support Of Plaintiffs-Appellees' 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)

Office of Solicitor General Files Amicus Briefs on Scope of Relief and Standing Issues

Excerpt: The Department of Labor Office of the Solicitor has posted the amicus brief filed in Tullis v. UMB Bank, N.A. wherein the district court, citing the Fourth Circuit's opinion in LaRue v. DeWolff, Boberg & Assocs., 450 F.3d 570, 572 (4th Cir.2006), took a similarly narrow reading of 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3).

Text of U.S. Solicitor General Brief to Supreme Court on Tracing Requirement for ERISA Benefit Overpayments (PDF)

"Permitting a fiduciary to enforce an equitable lien only against identified third-party recovery funds in the defendant's possession is consistent with ERISA's design. To be sure, in some cases, the beneficiary's disposition of the funds will prevent the fiduciary from recovering the reimbursement to which it is entitled. But that possibility has been clear since Great-West, and Congress has not acted to override this Court's construction of Section 502(a)(3) in reimbursement cases." [Nat. Elevator Indus. Health Benefit Plan v. Montanile, No. 14-11678 (11th Cir. Nov. 25, 2014; cert. pet. granted Mar. 30, 2015)]

Text of DOL Solicitor General Brief in Support of Certiorari Petition in Tibble v. Edison International (PDF)

"Petitioners first seek review of the question whether 29 U.S.C. 1113(1) bars claims that fiduciaries violated their duty of prudence under 29 U.S.C 1104(a)(1)(B) by offering imprudent investments as part of an ERISA plan, when the investments were first selected more than six years before the plaintiff filed suit. The court of appeals erred in finding such claims time-barred. ERISA imposes a continuing duty of prudence on plan fiduciaries, and respondents breached that duty throughout the limitations period by continuing to offer higher-cost investment options when identical lower-cost options were available. The court of appeals' decision conflicts with the decisions of other courts of appeals, and the statute-of-limitations issue is an important one. The Court therefore should grant certiorari on that question." [Tibble v. Edison International, No. 13-550 (9th Cir. Aug. 1, 2013; cert. pet. filed Oct. 30, 2013)]

Text of Second DOL Solicitor General Brief to Supreme Court in Tibble v. Edison (PDF)

"Respondents had an ongoing duty of prudence, which included a duty to revisit the plan investments and remove imprudent ones.... [P]etitioners' claims are based not on the initial decision to offer the higher-cost funds as plan investments, but on the breaches of fiduciary duty committed when the imprudent investments remained in the plan ... Under the law of trusts, a trustee must periodically review trust assets and remove imprudent investments, regardless of whether there has been a significant change in circumstances.... The court of appeals effectively exempted plan fiduciaries from a significant aspect of the trust law duties imposed by ERISA once an investment has been in an ERISA plan for six years." [Tibble v. Edison International, No. 13-550 (9th Cir. Aug. 1, 2013; cert. pet. granted Oct. 2, 2014)]

Text of Solicitor General's Brief Recommending Supreme Court Deny Review of Stock Drop Case (PDF)

"Petitioners contend that review is warranted to address which party has the burden of proof on the issue of causation once a plaintiff has established a breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA and a prima facie case of related plan losses, and to address what standard should be used to assess causation when the fiduciary breach is a failure of process. The court of appeals correctly decided both issues, and contrary to petitioners ' contentions, there is no clear circuit split on either question. This case would in any event be a poor vehicle for consideration of the questions presented, because resolution of those questions may not affect the outcome on the causation question. Further review is therefore unwarranted." [Tatum v. RJR Pension Investment Comm., No. 13-1360 (4th Cir. Aug. 4, 2014; cert. pet. filed Dec. 1, 2014)]

Brief of Secretary of Labor as Amicus Curiae in Support of Plaintiff-Appellant in Barboza v. California Association of Firefighters

The Secretary's brief addresses the following issues: 1. Whether the district court erred in excusing defendants from the statutory requirement ... to hold plan assets in trust based on its conclusion that defendants acted prudently when they relied on undocumented advice allegedly given by an unidentified [DOL] employee in 1987. 2. Whether the district court correctly held that defendants breached their ERISA duties by failing to undertake annual actuarial reviews of the Plan's reserves.

Justice Department and State Attorneys General Sue to Block Anthem's Acquisition of Cigna, Aetna's Acquisition of Humana

"The U.S. Department of Justice and attorneys general from multiple states and the District of Columbia sued today to block Anthem's proposed acquisition of Cigna and Aetna's proposed acquisition of Humana, alleging that the transactions would increase concentration and harm competition across the country, reducing from five to three the number of large, national health insurers in the nation.... The complaints allege that the two mergers -- valued at $54 billion and $37 billion -- would harm seniors, working families and individuals, employers and doctors and other healthcare providers by limiting price competition, reducing benefits, decreasing incentives to provide innovative wellness programs and lowering the quality of care."

Central States Agrees to Repay Excess Special Financial Assistance Funds

"The Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Plan (Central States) has entered into a civil settlement agreement pursuant to which it has agreed to repay more than $126.5 million in excess funds that it received from the [PBGC] in connection with the PBGC's Special Financial Assistance Program.... The resolution obtained in this matter was the result of a coordinated effort between the Justice Department's Civil Division, Commercial Litigation Branch, PBGC-OIG and PBGC Office of General Counsel, along with the [DOL] and Department of Treasury."