|
WorldCom
Inc
PDF
Version January 15, 2004
DOL argued that appointing officials
have a duty to monitor the fiduciaries they appoint and that plaintiffs do not have to plead the elements of fraud to state
a claim for breaches of fiduciary duty, even when the alleged
breaches involve claims of misrepresentation.
|
Millsap
v McDonnell-Douglas
PDF
Version October 9, 2003
DOL argued that back pay is an available equitable remedy
for a violation of the anti-retaliation/discrimination provision in
ERISA section 510. |
Bombardier
v Ferrer
PDF Version
September 11, 2003
DOL argued that the
imposition of a constructive trust over settlement funds held in the
trust account of an attorney for a participant is a permissible
form of "equitable relief" under the Supreme Court's
decision in Great-West Life Ins. Co. v Knudson. DOL also argued
that under the plan terms, the plan is entitled to be reimbursed for
the full amount expended, without an offset for the amount that
the participant expended on attorney's fees in obtaining the
third-party tort settlement.
|
Tittle v Enron Part
1 Part
2 PDF Version
August 30, 2003
DOL argued that:
|
-
The duty to protect retirement
plans falls not only on the trustees who directly oversee the
plans, but also on top executives and officials who are
responsible for appointing the fiduciaries and monitoring their
performance;
-
If any of these fiduciaries
were aware or should have been aware that the employees were
misinformed about the stability of Enron stock, they had a duty
to take appropriate action to protect their retirement
investments;
-
This could include
investigating allegations of accounting fraud, disclosing the
true facts to plan participants, the investing public and/or
other fiduciaries, and stopping further investment in employer
stock;
-
Disclosing information about
accounting irregularities to the public, or refusing to purchase
more Enron stock and elimination it as an investment option, is
fully consistent with the securities laws, which forbid buying
or selling stock based on "inside information" that
the general public does not have;
-
That fiduciaries have an
obligation to ensure that investments in employer securities,
whether in a 401(k) plan or an ESOP, are prudent,
notwithstanding plan provisions that contemplate or favor such
investments;
-
That directed trustees cannot
follow directions that they know, or because of "red
flags" ought to know are imprudent or would otherwise
violate ERISA;
-
That participants may recover
monetary relief if they can prove that the fiduciaries breached
their duties with regard to the cash balance plan;
-
That, even if it is a
non-fiduciary, Arthur Anderson may be liable for equitable
relief if it knowingly participated in the fiduciary breaches of
others.
|
Williams
Company
PDF Version
August 21, 2003
DOL argued that those who have the power to appoint and remove plan
fiduciaries are themselves fiduciaries with an ongoing duty to
monitor those they appoint.
|
Callery
v US Life Insurance Co
PDF Version
August 20, 2003
DOL filed an amicus curiae brief in support of
the plaintiff arguing that equitable relief under Section 502(a)(3)
includes a recovery from a fiduciary of any direct monetary losses
caused by a fiduciary's breach of its duties.
|
Arana v
Ochsner Health Plan Inc
PDF Version
April 10, 2003
DOL argued that:
|
-
An action to
enforce the terms of a state anti-subrogation insurance statute is
removable to federal court under the "complete preemption"
doctrine; and
-
ERISA likewise completely preempts an action to
enforce the provisions of the state statute that provide for
penalties for improper or untimely benefit determinations.
|
Gerosa
v Savasta
PDF Version
November 1, 2002
The district court for the Southern District of
New York held that ERISA preempts a state law claim for malpractice
brought by plan trustees against actuaries to the plan, but provides
a federal common law claim for damages against such entities. DOL
argued that the court
erred on both points.
|
Stern
v IBM
PDF Version
October 15, 2002
The district court issued an order holding that
IBM's sick leave program constituted an ERISA plan, so that Stern's
claim for breach of contract actually stated a claim for ERISA
benefits and therefore was properly removed to federal court. DOL
argued
that under the Secretary's "payroll practices" regulation,
the sick leave program is not an ERISA plan.
|
Mario
v P&C Food Markets
PDF Version
September 10, 2002
DOL argued that a summary plan description need not
contain information concerning the discretion afforded the plan
administrator to interpret plan terms.
|
Keen
v Weaver
PDF Version
February 13, 2002
DOL argued that ERISA and
the pension plan documents determine the plaintiff's entitlement to
benefits, and that the court should not develop a federal common law
that would supplant the written designation rule.
|
Ostler
v Oce-USA Inc
PDF Version
February 8, 2002
DOL argued that equitable relief
within the meaning of Section 502(a)(3) of ERISA includes the
recovery from a fiduciary of any direct monetary loss caused by the
fiduciary's breach of its obligations.
|
Estate of David Egelhoff
PDF Version
June 26, 2001
DOL argued that ERISA and
the pension plan documents determine the plaintiff's entitlement to
benefits, and that the court should not develop a federal common law
that would supplant the written designation rule.
|
Benefits Committee
v Key Trust
PDF Version
June 22, 2001
DOL argued that by remitting to the ESOP's sponsoring
employer a payment which the ESOP has no obligation to make under
the terms of the plan or otherwise, Key Trust clearly would violate
its duty of fiduciary loyalty and commit a prohibited transaction.
|
Harley
v 3M
PDF Version
July 12, 2000
DOL filed a brief arguing that the district court
erred in concluding that the defined benefit pension plan suffered
no loss because it was over funded. DOL also argued that the district
court erred in applying the adequate consideration test in Section
408(b)(2) to the prohibited transaction because the transaction
involved self-dealing and was prohibited by Section 406(b).
|
Harley
v 3M Rehearing
PDF Version
May 22, 2002
DOL filed a brief in support of en banc and panel
rehearing making the same arguments as in the brief above.
|