CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 30, 2003

In Re Enron Corp. Securities, Derivative & ERISA

This case, referred to as the 'Tittle action,' involves class action claims brought by Enron employees who participated in three pension benefit plans (Savings Plan, ESOP, and Cash Balance Plan). Plaintiffs allege breaches of fiduciary and co-fiduciary duties under ERISA, RICO violations, and Texas common law claims (negligent misrepresentation and civil conspiracy) against Enron, its officers, directors, administrative committees, Arthur Andersen, Vinson & Elkins, and several investment banks. The court grants motions to dismiss for most RICO and common law claims, citing preemption by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA) and the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act (SLUSA), as the underlying conduct is actionable as securities fraud. However, the court largely denies motions to dismiss for the ERISA claims, allowing them to proceed, finding that plaintiffs have adequately stated claims for breach of fiduciary duty related to imprudent investments in Enron stock, plan lockdowns, and failure to diversify plan assets. The decision outlines the various duties and liabilities of fiduciaries, co-fiduciaries, and non-fiduciaries under ERISA.

ERISAFiduciary DutyCo-Fiduciary LiabilityDirected TrusteeSecurities Litigation Reform ActSLUSA PreemptionClass ActionPension PlansESOP401(k) Plan
References
247
Case No. 08-2192
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 09, 2010

In Re Regions Morgan Keegan Erisa Litigation

Plaintiffs, current or former employee participants in Regions sponsored 401(k) retirement plans, filed a class action lawsuit under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) against various fiduciaries and parties in interest, including Regions Financial Corporation, Regions Bank, Morgan Keegan & Company, Inc., and Morgan Asset Management, Inc. The Complaint alleged that the Plans suffered losses due to imprudent investments in Regions' company stock, high-risk Bond Funds, and excessive fees charged by RMK Select Funds, facilitated by self-dealing and revenue sharing. Defendants filed motions to dismiss, asserting various defenses including exemptions under ERISA, lack of fiduciary status for some individuals, and the applicability of ERISA § 404(c). The court largely denied the motions to dismiss, finding that Plaintiffs had sufficiently pled facts for most claims to proceed, but granted the motion to dismiss Count V against Morgan Keegan and MAM.

ERISA401(k) PlanFiduciary DutyMotion to DismissClass ActionInvestment ManagementExcessive FeesProhibited TransactionCompany StockBond Funds
References
42
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Empire Blue Cross & Blue Shield v. Consolidated Welfare Fund

Empire Blue Cross and Blue Shield (Empire) sued the Consolidated Welfare Fund and other defendants for breach of contract, fraud, and RICO violations. The defendants moved for partial judgment on the pleadings, asserting that the state law claims were preempted by ERISA. The court analyzed whether the Fund qualified as an 'employee welfare benefit plan' (EWBP) under ERISA. Finding that the Fund, with its 'associate members' from diverse backgrounds and commercial solicitation, did not meet the criteria of an EWBP, the court concluded that ERISA preemption did not apply. Therefore, the defendants' motion for partial judgment on the pleadings was denied, allowing Empire's state law claims to proceed.

ERISA PreemptionEmployee Welfare Benefit PlanHealth Insurance FraudLabor Union MembershipAssociate MembersRule 12(c) MotionFederal Civil ProcedureStatutory InterpretationCommercial Insurance SchemesDistrict Court Ruling
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Romney v. Lin

This opinion addresses an action to collect unpaid contributions owed by Goodee Fashions, Inc. to four union benefit funds, totaling $70,647.17. After an initial judgment against Goodee Fashions proved uncollectible, the plaintiff, representing the union benefit funds, sued Alan Lin, a principal shareholder, under New York Bus. Corp. Law § 630. This state law holds the ten largest shareholders jointly and severally liable for debts to employees, including benefit funds. Defendant removed the case to federal court, arguing preemption by ERISA and LMRA. The court denied the plaintiff's motion to remand and granted the defendant's motion to dismiss, ruling that N.Y. Bus. Corp. Law § 630 is preempted by ERISA. Consequently, the claim for $70,647.17 was dismissed, except for a $598.27 portion related to the Sportswear Industry Trust Fund, which was deemed not an ERISA fund.

ERISA PreemptionLMRAShareholder LiabilityUnpaid ContributionsEmployee Benefit PlansCollective BargainingState Law PreemptionFederal JurisdictionCorporate DebtDismissal
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Messing

The debtor, Patrick F. Messing, sought to exempt his $6,365.45 interest in an ERISA-qualified pension benefit plan established by his employer, J.B.F. Associates, Inc. He claimed the exemption under both Tennessee law (Tenn.Code Ann. § 26-2-104(b)) and federal law (11 U.S.C.A. § 522(b)(2)(A)). The trustee, Ann Mostoller, objected to both claims. The court sustained the trustee's objection to the Tennessee law claim, finding the state statute preempted by ERISA. However, the court denied the trustee's objection to the federal law claim, concluding that ERISA § 206(d)(1) establishes a cognizable federal exemption. Therefore, the debtor's claim of exemption was granted under federal law but denied under state law.

ERISABankruptcyExemptionPension PlanEmployee BenefitsFederal PreemptionAnti-AlienationChapter 7Debtor's RightsTrustee Objection
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 29, 2010

In re Marsh Erisa Litigation

Named Plaintiffs Donald Hundley, Conrad Simon, and Leticia Hernandez brought a class action lawsuit against Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. (MMC) alleging breaches of fiduciary duties under ERISA related to imprudent investments in MMC stock within the company's 401(k) plan. The litigation, complex in scope and involving extensive discovery, ultimately led to a $35 million class action settlement after arm's-length negotiations facilitated by a mediator. The Court approved the settlement, certified the class for settlement purposes, and sanctioned the plan of allocation. Additionally, the decision granted substantial attorneys' fees and expenses to lead counsel, alongside case contribution awards for the named plaintiffs, while rejecting the two objections received. This ruling concludes a significant ERISA litigation, emphasizing the protection of retirement savings for American workers.

ERISAClass ActionSettlement ApprovalFiduciary Duty401(k) PlanStock InvestmentAttorneys FeesLitigation ExpensesClass CertificationPlan of Allocation
References
78
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kosakow v. New Rochelle Radiology Associates, P.C.

Nancy Kosakow sued her former employer, New Rochelle Radiology Associates, alleging FMLA violations and wrongful denial of severance pay under ERISA. The court previously found FMLA claims collaterally estopped but remanded the ERISA claim to the Plan Administrator for a determination on severance eligibility. The Administrator denied severance, finding Kosakow not "terminated" and, even if so, not entitled to severance. This court reversed the "not terminated" finding, stating Kosakow was terminated due to a reduction in force. However, the court affirmed the Administrator's denial of severance, concluding that the "where applicable" clause in the Plan gave the Administrator broad discretion and that Kosakow's circumstances did not warrant severance. The court found that the denial was not unreasonable, even when considering a severance payment made to another full-time employee under different circumstances.

ERISASeverance PayFMLATerminationSummary JudgmentDe Novo ReviewPlan Administrator DiscretionEmployee BenefitsReduction in ForcePolicy Manual
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Trustees of the Amalgamated Cotton Garment & Allied Industries Fund v. Baltimore Sportswear, Inc.

This ERISA action involves a dispute between a multiemployer retirement plan and an employer regarding withdrawal liability. The retirement plan sued the employer to recover overdue quarterly payments, as the employer failed to make any payments after its withdrawal and did not properly initiate arbitration. The employer argued that its liability should be limited due to its net worth and that 29 U.S.C. § 1405 was not subject to arbitration. The court rejected the employer's arguments, emphasizing that the statutory scheme requires continued quarterly payments pending arbitration and that claims under § 1405 must also be raised in arbitration. Consequently, the court granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiff for the delinquent payments, interest, attorneys' fees, and costs, while denying the employer's cross-motion for discovery.

ERISAMultiemployer Pension Plan Amendments ActMPPAAWithdrawal LiabilityPension PlanArbitrationSummary JudgmentQuarterly PaymentsInsolvent EmployersStatutory Interpretation
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 19, 2004

In Re Dynegy, Inc. ERISA Litigation

The plaintiff, Constance K. Schied, initiated a civil enforcement action under ERISA against Dynegy, Inc. and various associated committees and individuals, alleging breaches of fiduciary duties related to the company's 401(k) savings plan. The lawsuit claimed that the defendants' misrepresentations concerning Dynegy's financial condition led to an artificially inflated stock price, resulting in significant investment losses for Plan participants. The court addressed multiple motions to dismiss filed by the defendants. Ultimately, while many claims against trustees, other committees, and individual directors were dismissed, some key claims against Dynegy, Inc. and specific members of the Benefit Plans Committee were allowed to proceed, focusing on misrepresentations in the Summary Plan Description, failure to disclose material information, and offering unsuitable investment options.

ERISAFiduciary DutyStock Investment401(k) PlanEmployee BenefitsMisrepresentationDisclosure ObligationsCorporate GovernanceMotion to DismissPlan Administrator
References
48
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Colgate-Palmolive Co. Erisa Litigation

This ERISA class action case, initiated in 2007, involved allegations against Colgate-Palmolive Company Employees’ Retirement Income Plan for miscalculating pension benefits. After three years of litigation and another three years of settlement negotiations, a $45.9 million class action settlement was reached for 8,612 participants. The Court granted preliminary approval in December 2013 and final approval after a fairness hearing in April 2014. This order addresses the plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees and costs, requesting 25% of the fund ($11,475,000) for fees, $591,011.17 for costs, and $5,000 incentive awards for each of the six named plaintiffs. The Court, applying the percentage of the fund method and using empirical studies for comparison, found the requested 25% fee reasonable and granted the motion for fees, costs, and incentive awards.

Class ActionSettlement ApprovalAttorneys' FeesCommon Fund DoctrineLodestar MethodPercentage of Fund MethodERISA LitigationPension BenefitsStatute of LimitationsActuarial Experts
References
20
Showing 1-10 of 538 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational