Search the News Archive

American Benefits Council Amicus Brief with U.S. Court of Appeals for Second Circuit in Conkright v. Frommert (PDF)

25 pages. "Amici and their members seek to ensure that voluntary employee benefit plans remain a workable and vital feature of the American employment landscape. When courts refuse to defer to a plan administrator's reasonable exercise of discretionary authority, some employers may question the wisdom of continuing to maintain such plans in the future."

U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals Decision in Hirt v. Equitable, Decided July 9, 2008 (PDF)

15 pages. Excerpt: Plaintiffs in two separate cases brought claims alleging that 'cash balance' defined benefit plans violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act's rule against age-based reductions in the rate of benefit accrual, 29 U.S.C. § 1054(b)(1)(H)(i) (2005), as that rule existed prior to the amendment that took effect as of June 29, 2005.

Second Circuit Overrules District Court Dismissal of Stock-Drop Case

"In a significant departure from the stock drop case rulings coming out of other courts, including other U.S. Courts of Appeals, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit overturned a district court's dismissal of a claim for breach of ERISA fiduciary duties brought by a participant whose accounts in IBM's 401(k) plan were invested in an IBM stock fund and suffered losses as a result of a decline in the market price of IBM shares. Prior to this Second Circuit ruling, plaintiffs in other stock drop cases have struggled to defeat plan defendants' motions to dismiss." [Jander v. Ret. Plans Comm. of IBM, No. 17-3518 (2d Cir. Dec. 10, 2018)]

Second Circuit Upholds Trial Court's Denial of Attorney Fees for Successful ERISA Plaintiff

Excerpt: "LEYDA v. ALLIEDSIGNAL, INC., No. 02-7408, 02-7496 (2d Cir. Mar. 4, 2003) Appeals and cross-appeals stemming from an ERISA ruling, which denied attorney fees to plaintiff and held that defendant failed to comply with ERISA's disclosure provisions, have no merit and are denied."

Text of Second Circuit Opinion: Extent of Plan's Compliance with DOL Claims Procedure Regulation Determines Court's Standard of Review (PDF)

"[We] hold that, when denying a claim for benefits, a plan's failure to comply with the [DOL]'s claims-procedure regulation, 29 C.F.R. Section 2560.503-1, will result in that claim being reviewed de novo in federal court, unless the plan has otherwise established procedures in full conformity with the regulation and can show that its failure to comply with the regulation in the processing of a particular claim was inadvertent and harmless. We further hold that civil penalties are not available to a participant or beneficiary for a plan's failure to comply with the claims ‐ procedure regulation. Finally, we hold that a plan's failure to comply with the claims-procedure regulation may, in the district court's discretion, constitute good cause warranting the introduction of additional evidence outside the administrative record." [Halo v. Yale Health Plan, No. 14-4055 (2d Cir. Apr. 12, 2016)]

Second Circuit Affirms Lower Court Ruling in Challenge to Xerox Pension Plan Calculations (PDF)

19 pages. "The District Court's selection of the new hire remedy falls within the 'range of permissible decisions available under an abuse of discretion standard.'... [We] affirm the District Court's decision to use the new hire approach as an equitable remedy to redress the Plan Administrator's notice violations.... We affirm the District Court's decision to use the prime rate for [the award of prejudgment interest]." [Frommert v. Conkright, Nos. 17-114, 17-738 (2d Cir. Jan. 14, 2019)]

Text of Second Circuit Opinion: District Court Correctly Reformed Plan to Conform to Plan Sponsor's 'Materially False, Misleading, and Incomplete Disclosures' (PDF)

"Defendants focus, in particular, on participants who received seniority enhancements under the cash balance plan. Those participants, Defendants contend, experienced little to no wear-away, but in fact received more relief than other participants because they benefitted from a windfall created by the cumulative effect of the 'A benefit' and 'B benefit' ordered by the district court.... [We] review a district court's award of equitable relief 'only for an abuse of discretion or for a clear error of law,' Amara II ... and we detect none here. As we stated in Amara II, the equitable remedy of reformation is governed by contract principles, and a district court may 'properly reform[] [a pension] plan to reflect the representations that the defendants made to the plaintiffs.' " [Osberg v. Foot Locker, No. 15-3602 (2d Cir. July 6, 2017)]

Second Circuit Reverses Bankruptcy Court's Decision on PBGC Termination Premiums

Excerpt: In Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation v. Oneida, Ltd. dated April 8, 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed a ruling by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York characterizing certain 'termination premiums' owed to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) pursuant to the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 as contingent, pre-petition claims and thus dischargeable in bankruptcy.

Two Circuit Courts of Appeals Rule That Preauthorization Process Does Not Impose Independent Contractual Liability

"Within days of one another, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth and Second Circuits ruled -- on issues of first impression for both -- that ERISA expressly preempts state law breach of contract and promissory estoppel claims asserted by out-of-network providers who allege that preauthorization communications with claim administrators impose reimbursement obligations independent and irrespective of the terms and conditions contained in a patient's ERISA-governed health benefit plan." [Bristol SL Holdings, Inc. v. Cigna Health & Life Ins. Co., No. 23-55019 (9th Cir. May 31, 2024); Park Ave. Podiatric Care, P.L.L.C. v. Cigna Health & Life Ins. Co., No. 23-1134 (2d Cir. Jun, 3, 2024)

Text of Second Circuit Opinion in Amara v. CIGNA, Upholding District Court's Reformation of Pension Benefits Plan (PDF)

"We agree with the district court that, because the CIGNA Pension Plan is part of a compensation package for employees that stems from their employment agreements, plaintiffs have given consideration for their participation in the retirement plan so that it is appropriate, to the extent this plan constitutes a trust, to analyze reformation under contract principles.... By hiding the truth about the plan, CIGNA prevented all of its employees from becoming disaffected, spreading knowledge regarding the plan to others who stood to lose more from the benefit conversion, and from planning for their retirement. Therefore the district court did not err in determining that CIGNA committed fraud or inequitable conduct against all of the class members... Finally (and contrary to defendants' claim), reforming the CIGNA retirement plan partly in light of the misleading representations made in the SPDs and other plan communications is consistent with the applicable principles of reformation." [Amara v. Cigna, Nos. 13-447-cv and 13-526 (2d Cir. Dec. 23, 2014)]