As the bellwether cases in the ERISA actuarial assumptions litigation approach the end of the motion to dismiss stage, this is a good time to step back and assess how they are proceeding.
Test cases of this sort tend to unfold in phases.
Court filings made this week show that Johns Hopkins has settled its ERISA fee case on proposed terms that include making a $14.5 million settlement payment, the second highest settlement in a 403(b) fee case, behind Vanderbilt ($14.5 million), and ahead of Duke ($10.65 million), U. Chicago ($6.5 million) and Brown ($3.5 million). The most
The University of Pennsylvania suffered a setback in the first ERISA fee case against a university to be decided by a U.S. Court of Appeals. In Sweda v. the University of Pennsylvania, a divided panel of the Third Circuit ruled 2-1 that the district court had erred in granting the university’s motion to dismiss.
The Supreme Court decisions in Dudenhoeffer (2014) and Amgen (2016) made it more difficult, as a practical matter, for plaintiffs to bring ERISA duty of prudence claims involving employer stock. In the ensuing years, every stock drop complaint filed by ERISA plan participants around the country was dismissed for failure to allege facts satisfying Dudenhoeffer
Plaintiffs’ lawyers have filed a series of cases challenging the lawfulness of the actuarial assumptions used in certain defined benefit retirement plans. The seventh such case was filed on May 20, 2019 in the Eastern District of Virginia.
All seven complaints are based on the same general theories and the same specific claims for relief