Search the News Archive

Supreme Court Accepts Cert in Dudenhoeffer ERISA Moench Presumption of Prudence Case

"The case law had been trending in favor of the presumption of prudence in these stock-drop cases in recent years, with the Sixth Circuit being a notable exception.... [G]iven that the Court granted [certiorari] on the question as presented by the company (and did not re-write the question as requested by the Solicitor General), we may gain some insight.... Phrasing the question presented in such a leading manner suggests only one possible reasonable answer: upholding the presumption of prudence in ERISA stock drop cases."

Analysis of the Oral Transcript in the LaRue ERISA Case

Excerpt: [T]he case may shine much needed light on the scope of relief available to employees under Sections 502(a)(2) and 502(a)(3) of ERISA. Below are my initial thoughts on the oral argument today in the case based upon an analysis of the oral transcript. (Full disclosure: I was one of eleven law professors who signed an amicus brief supporting LaRue's opposition to DeWolff's motion to dismiss. I hope, however, that this fact does not cloud my analysis of the oral argument).... I predict a 6-3 decision for LaRue[.]

Sixth Circuit Finds ERISA Section 502(a)(3) Remedy for Wrongful Denial of Benefits May Include Disgorgement of Profits

"The debate going forward is whether the Supreme Court's Varity case allows this outcome. That case stands for the proposition that where a plaintiff has a remedy for benefits under 502(a)(1)(B), a remedy on the same claim cannot be had for breach of fiduciary duty under 502(a)(3), as 502(a)(3) is only supposed to apply if no other provision does. It is the catch-all. Here, the court says essentially these are two different claims so Varity does not apply. It also says that the disgorgement sum of $3.7 million dollar is the appropriate remedy given the size of the benefit denied (almost $1 million disability claim), the time elapsed, and the fact that the benefit owed was commingled with other insurance company monies." [Rochow v. LINA, No. 12-2074 (6th Cir. Dec. 6, 2013)]