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)

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)]

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.

Text of DOL Brief in N.D.N.Y. Case on Duties of Corporate Directors as Pension Plan Fiduciaries

Agway Inc. Employees' 401(k) Thrift Investment Plan v. Magnuson (June 18, 2004). Excerpt: [T]he Plan divides the fiduciary obligations among the named fiduciaries: the Investment Committee has responsibility for managing the assets of the Plan, the Administration Committee has responsibility for all other aspects of the administration of the Plan, and the Director Defendants appoint the Committees and the trustee.

Text of DOL Amicus Brief In Re Schering-Plough Corporation ERISA Litigation

Excerpt: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Whether participants in a defined contribution pension plan have standing to sue plan fiduciaries under sections 409(a) and 502(a)(2) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ('ERISA'), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1109(a) and 1132(a)(2), to recover losses sustained by the plan as a result of fiduciary breaches, where such losses will be allocated to individual accounts within the defined contribution plan.

Text of DOL Amicus Brief on Claim Against Directors for Failing to Oversee Investment Committee

Excerpt: The Complaint in this case alleges that the members of the Williams Company Board of Directors, who admittedly were charged with the duty to appoint, retain and remove members of the Benefits Committee, breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA by failing to monitor the Committee members and failing to provide them with the information that they needed to carry out their investment responsibilities.

Text of DOL Amicus Brief in 5th Circuit Standing-to-Sue Case Alleging Fiduciary Breach Under DC Plan (PDF)

33 pages; Milofsky v. American Airlines. Excerpt: Statement of the Issues: 1. Whether participants in individual account pension plans have standing to sue plan fiduciaries under section 502(a)(2) of [ERISA] for relief to the plan when the alleged violations affected some, but not all, of the plan participants' accounts. 2. Whether participants are required to exhaust internal plan remedies before bringing suit to recover losses resulting from fidicuary breaches under section 502(a)(2) ...

DOL 'Statement of Interest' Supporting ERISA Preemption of CalSavers Program (PDF)

25 pages. "The California Secure Choice Retirement Savings Trust Act takes away the freedom of choice that lies at the core of ERISA by forcing employers either to establish their own ERISA plan or to maintain an equivalent plan under the Act.... [The Act] disregards Congress's careful determination that employers should not be required to maintain employee pension benefit plans. Because the Secure Choice Act disregards and runs afoul of ERISA's statutory scheme by effectively requiring employers to maintain such plans, it is preempted by ERISA's broad, express preemption provision that disallows any state laws that 'relate to any employee benefit plan.' " [Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assoc. v. The California Secure Choice Ret. Savings Prog. (CalSavers), No. 18-1584 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2019)]