DECLARATION OF JULIE GOLDSMITH REISER IN SUPPORT OF ... · 23. A true and correct copy of the firm...

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

CORINNE BUTLER and ANDREA ) FITZSIMMONS, on behalf of themselves ) individually, and on behalf of all others ) similarly situated )

) Plaintiffs, ) No. 16-cv-5907

) v. ) Judge Manish S. Shah ) HOLY CROSS HOSPITAL, SINAI ) HEALTH SYSTEM, WAYNE ) LERNER, DIANE HOWARD, JOHN R. ) BALL, M.D, BARBARA FAHEY, ) SATYA AHUJA, M.D., CHIA HUANG, ) M.D., LARRY MARGOLIS, ) SIVARAMAPRASAD TUMMALA, M.D., ) HOWARD BERMAN, GARY J. ) NIEDERPRUEM, SHARON ROSSMARK, ) YOGI AHULUWALIA, M.D., JOHN ) BENEVIDES, CHARLES BROWN, ) DANIEL CANTRELL, ALAN H. ) CHANNING, JOHN DANAHER, M.D., ) LESLIE DAVIS, MARK J. FRISCH, ) AIDA GIACHELLO, NEAL GOLDSTEIN, ) ALBERT GRACE, JONATHAN JONAS, ) GARY KELLER, KENNETH A. ) LUCCIONI, ROBERT MARKIN, GLORIA ) MATERRE, BRET MAXWELL, WAYNE ) PIERCE, MAURICE SCHWARTZ, ) ROBERT SHAKNO, BEN SOLDINGER, ) ALAN SOLOW, ROBERT STEELE, ) STEVE TOPEL, TERRY WHEAT, and ) JOHN and JANE DOES, each an ) individual, 1-40, ) Defendants.

DECLARATION OF JULIE GOLDSMITH REISER IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Case: 1:16-cv-05907 Document #: 37 Filed: 03/01/17 of 8 PageID #:289

2

I, Julie Goldsmith Reiser, declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United

States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.

1. I am a Partner with the law firm of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC (“Cohen

Milstein”) and a member in good standing of the bar of the District of Columbia. I represent

Plaintiffs1 and the proposed Settlement Class in the above-captioned action. I have personal

knowledge of the facts set forth below and, if called as witness, I could and would testify

competently thereto.

2. Class Counsel were approached by several individuals in 2015 concerning the

purported termination of the Pension Plan for Employees of Holy Cross Hospital. After

engaging in a detailed factual and legal investigation, Class Counsel filed Plaintiffs’ 56-page

complaint in June 2016. Counsel’s investigation included, among other things, a review and

analysis of the Plan documents; documents pertaining to Sinai Health System’s (“SHS’s”)

acquisition of Holy Cross Hospital (“Holy Cross”); Holy Cross’s disclosure to Plaintiffs about

the transfer of the Plan to the Sisters of St. Casimir; communications from the Sisters of St.

Casimir to class members regarding their intent to terminate the Plan; news articles concerning

Holy Cross and SHS; information regarding Sisters of St. Casimir’s assets; Holy Cross’s local,

state and federal governmental filings; and information provided by the Plaintiffs themselves.

Class Counsel met in person and regularly conferred by phone with the Named Plaintiffs during

the investigation phase of the case. Class Counsel conferred with an actuarial expert in pleading

certain allegations in the Complaint.

3. Immediately after filing the Complaint, Class Counsel sent a demand letter to

1 Capitalized terms not otherwise defined in this Declaration shall have the same meaning ascribed to them in the Class Action Settlement Agreement. A copy of the Settlement Agreement is attached as Exhibit 1 to Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement (“Preliminary Approval Motion”).


3

defendants requesting a meeting to discuss whether the parties could resolve their differences.

Defendants agreed to trying to resolve the claims rather than immediately engaging in litigation.

Settlement Process

4. On June 29, 2016, the Parties filed a joint status report with the Court and

stipulated to stay the case while the Parties engaged in Settlement negotiations.

5. The Settlement negotiations were extensive and took place over the course of

many months. These negotiations were overseen by a third party JAMS mediator, Robert A.

Meyer, Esq. Mr. Meyer has substantial experience mediating cases involving ERISA and

retirement plan issues, including cases involving the church plan exception.

6. The settlement negotiations included two in-person mediation sessions in Los

Angeles, California, as well as numerous calls and meetings. Both Class Counsel and

Defendants’ Counsel provided the mediator with their respective, confidential mediation

statements and also exchanged multiple proposals and counter-proposals with each other

concerning potential settlement terms. The mediator was in constant contact with the Parties

both orally and in writing.

7. The first in-person mediation session took place on August 24, 2016 in Los

Angeles, California. Although the matter was not resolved at the first mediation, the Parties

continued to discuss potential terms to a settlement agreement. Accordingly, this Court granted

the Parties’ September 19, 2016 request to extend the stay for an additional 60 days.

8. During the extended stay, the Parties remained actively engaged in settlement

negotiations and organized a second in-person meeting with the mediator and other bankruptcy

and actuarial professionals who offered their opinions on the risks of a potential insolvency

scenario should Plaintiffs be awarded a judgment. The information exchanged was confidential


4

and protected by Federal Rules of Evidence 408.

9. This second in-person mediation session took place on December 19, 2016, in Los

Angeles, California. Numerous follow up sessions were held with the mediator by phone

thereafter. During these sessions, the parties explored a number of ways to secure the settlement

proceeds and to guard against the loss of settlement proceeds if insolvency proceedings were

initiated prior to the settlement being finally approved.

10. Settlement negotiations were also informed by decisions concerning the church

plan exemption that were issued by the Third, Seventh, and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeals, and

which are now pending before the Supreme Court. See Kaplan v. Saint Peter’s Healthcare Sys.,

810 F.3d 175 (3d Cir. 2015); Stapleton v. Advocate Health Care Network, 817 F.3d 517 (7th Cir.

2016); Rollins v. Dignity Health, 830 F.3d 900, 905 (9th Cir. 2016). In particular, the parties

considered the additional risk presented by the U.S. Solicitor General having filed a brief in

support of the hospital petitioners.

11. Throughout the settlement negotiations, Class Counsel expended a substantial

amount of time investigating the legal issues and financial risks associated with trying to collect

a judgment against the Defendants. This investigation included, inter alia: (a) inspecting,

reviewing and analyzing documents produced by or otherwise relating to Defendants’ business

structure and financial condition; (b) researching the applicable law with respect to the claims

asserted in the Complaint and the defenses and potential defenses thereto, including liability for

the improper transfer of the Plan to SSC and for failing to obtain insurance from the Pension

Benefit Guaranty Corporation (“PBGC”); (c) inspecting, reviewing and analyzing documents

concerning the Plan and administration of the Plan; and (d) researching and analyzing

governmental and other publicly-available information concerning Defendants and the Plan.


5

Settlement Agreement

12. After months of negotiations, the Parties finally agreed upon the non-monetary

components of a settlement, yet were unable to reach a monetary figure for resolving the

litigation.

13. On February 15, 2017, the mediator issued a mediator’s proposal, giving the

Parties twenty-four hours to accept or reject the settlement amount, whereupon both sides

accepted.

14. A Term Sheet was executed effective February 16, 2017, and the Parties informed

the Court they had reached a settlement.

15. In reaching this agreement, beyond the risks of obtaining a judgment, Class

Counsel and Plaintiffs also considered the risks of litigation, including whether the Supreme

Court will affirm the Stapleton v. Advocate decision and whether SHS has liability to the Plan

even if Stapleton is affirmed; the time necessary to achieve a complete resolution through

litigation; the complexity of the claims set forth in the Complaint; and the benefit accruing to the

Plan’s participants under the Settlement relative to what they might have secured had Pension

Benefit Guaranty Corporation insurance been available.

16. The Settlement Agreement now before the Court, Exhibit 1 to Plaintiffs’

Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement, is a comprehensive

agreement based on the Term Sheet. It was executed by all Parties on March 1, 2017. The

Settlement is the result of lengthy arm’s-length negotiations between the Parties and only was

achieved following both sides’ acceptance of a mediator’s proposal on monetary terms. The

process was thorough, adversarial, and professional. Class Counsel also gave careful attention to

the hospital’s ability to withstand judgment, and negotiated for various protections to secure a


6

payment for the Settlement Class. I have litigated class actions for over 15 years and this is the

first time in my career that I have inserted such terms into a Settlement Agreement.

17. For example, to ensure the Settlement Amount, Defendants agreed to draft a valid

and enforceable mortgage on Holy Cross’s real property and improvements, which stays in effect

until the Settlement is finally approved. Defendants also agreed to undertake best efforts to

obtain final approval of this Settlement, per Section 9.3 of the Settlement Agreement

(“Defendants’ Obligations in Insolvency Proceedings”). These provisions were informed by

Defendants’ historical results, future revenue streams, and also the state of healthcare

reimbursements in Illinois and nationwide.

18. The Settlement Agreement also provides for incentive awards to be paid to the

Named Plaintiffs in this action. Each of the Named Plaintiffs made substantial contributions to

the litigation, including: collecting and producing documents; maintaining regular contact with

Class Counsel; reviewing and approving the Complaint; staying abreast of settlement

negotiations; reviewing information produced for purposes of the mediation sessions and giving

their approval to the settlement of this litigation. These actions provided assistance to Class

Counsel and great benefit to the members of the Settlement Class.

Class Counsel

19. The three law firms representing the Plaintiffs and proposed Settlement Class in

this case: Cohen Milstein, Keller Rohrback, L.L.P. (“Keller Rohrback”), and DeBofsky,

Sherman & Casciari, P.C.–are well-versed in class action litigation, are among the leading

litigators of ERISA actions on behalf of plaintiffs, possess specific and extensive experience

litigating the ERISA “church plan” exception, and have an in-depth knowledge of the unique

legal and factual issues in this case.


7

20. For instance, Cohen Milstein and Keller Rohrback serve as co-lead counsel in all

three of the appellate court cases mentioned above concerning the applicability of the church

plan exemption to hospital pension plans, and also represent these plaintiffs in opposing

defendants’ petitions to the Supreme Court in each of those cases. See Rollins v. Dignity Health,

830 F.3d 900 (9th Cir. 2016), cert. granted, 137 S. Ct. 547 (2016); Kaplan v. Saint Peter’s

Healthcare Sys., 810 F.3d 175 (3d Cir. 2015), cert. granted, 137 S. Ct. 546 (2016); Stapleton v.

Advocate Health Care Network, 137 S. Ct. 546 (7th Cir. 2016), cert. granted, 137 S. Ct. 546

(2016).

21. In addition to these cases, Cohen Milstein and Keller Rohrback serve, or have

served, as co-counsel in roughly 20 cases pending across the country involving claims by other

hospital systems that their plans qualify as “church plans.”

22. A true and correct copy of the firm resume detailing the experience of Cohen

Milstein in ERISA cases and church plan cases is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

23. A true and correct copy of the firm resume detailing the experience of Keller

Rohrback in ERISA cases and church plan cases is attached hereto as Exhibit B.

24. A true and correct copy of the resume of Mark DeBofsky, founding partner of

DeBofsky, Sherman & Casciari, is attached hereto as Exhibit C.

25. Based on their experience and the facts of this case, Class Counsel have

concluded that the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the

foregoing is a true and correct.

Executed this 1st day of March, 2017, in Washington, D.C.

By:


8

Julie Goldsmith Reiser Attorney for Plaintiffs


EXHIBIT A

Case: 1:16-cv-05907 Document #: 37-1 Filed: 03/01/17 Page 1 of 17 PageID #:297

COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC For decades, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC has represented individuals, small businesses, institutional investors, and employees in many of the major class action cases litigated in the United States for violations of the antitrust, securities, consumer protection, civil rights/discrimination, ERISA, employment, and human rights laws. Cohen Milstein is also at the forefront of numerous innovative legal actions that are expanding the quality and availability of legal recourse for aggrieved individuals and businesses both domestic and international. Over its history, Cohen Milstein has obtained many landmark judgments and settlements for individuals and businesses in the United States and abroad.

COHEN MILSTEIN’S EMPLOYEE BENEFITS PRACTICE The Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") governs the conduct of private (non-governmental) employers who sponsor employee benefit plans and persons who manage those plans and control their assets. ERISA imposes duties on persons influencing or controlling plan investments, sets minimum standards in the design of certain employee benefit plans, makes enforceable benefit promises made by employers (including those made through the purchase of insurance) and makes enforceable the standards of conduct and plan design imposed by ERISA itself. Persons involved in the management of plans and the control of their assets, often including the employer or designated corporate officers must act in the best interest of the employees covered by the plan and their beneficiaries, not in the interest of the employer, with respect to managing the retirement or other benefit plan. ERISA Plans include traditional pension plans, 401(k) plans, employee stock ownership plans ("ESOPs"), health and other employee benefits. Cohen Milstein’s Employee Benefits Appellate Practice is dedicated to representing participants, beneficiaries or entities representing the interests of employees, retirees, plan participants or beneficiaries in ERISA cases on appeal. In the appropriate case, Cohen Milstein is willing to engage in appellate representation on a contingency fee basis or engage in representation on a deferred payment arrangement. The following cases are a representative sample of the types of cases litigated by Cohen Milstein's Employee Benefits practice group: PENSION PLANS

• New York Life - The Firm represented a class of current and former employees of the New York Life Insurance Company alleging that New York Life violated ERISA and RICO by engaging in self-dealing and investing the assets of the pension and 401(k) plans of its employees and agents in New York Life's own inappropriate and underperforming retail mutual funds.


• SBC Communications - The Firm represented employees who received an early retirement window pension and alleges that SBC violated ERISA by miscalculating the pension benefits for thousands of employees.

• Fujitsu - The Firm represented former employees of Fujitsu of America or its subsidiaries who were laid off with more than three years of service alleging that Fujitsu violated ERISA by adopting a plan provision changing the plan's vesting schedule in violation of a provision of ERISA that prohibits the involuntary application of such changes to employees with more than three years of service under the plan.

401(K) RETIREMENT PLANS Building on Cohen Milstein's extensive experience of the Securities Fraud/Investor Protection practice area, the firm also represents employees who purchased overvalued employer stock through employer-sponsored 401(k) retirement plans. In these cases, the firm represents employees alleging breach of fiduciary duties in order to hold employers and the plan fiduciaries accountable for misrepresentations which artificially inflated the value of the employer stock purchased through their 401(k) plans. While these employees may also have claims under the securities fraud laws, ERISA provides employees with significant additional rights and remedies to recover losses in employer stock lost through a 401(k) retirement plan. EMPLOYEE STOCK OWNERSHIP PLANS (ESOPS)

• Azon Corporation Employee Stock Ownership Plan - The Firm represented a class of current and former employees of Azon alleging breach of fiduciary duties against the Trustee, HSBC Bank, and other fiduciaries who permitted insiders at the company to sell their holdings in the Company for more than fair market value. Since and as a result of this transaction, Azon has gone bankrupt and the assets of the Azon ESOP have become worthless.

• Tharaldson Motels Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan - The Firm represents former employees of Tharaldson alleging breach of fiduciary duties against the Trustee, Gary Tharaldson, and other fiduciaries who permitted Gary Tharaldson and his family to sell their stock in the Company for more than fair market value in two self-dealing transactions which were designed primarily for the benefit of Gary Tharaldson and his family and not the employees of the Company who participated in the Plan.

OTHER EMPLOYEE BENEFITS

• FFIC - The Firm represented a class of disabled now former Fireman's Fund employees who were terminated as a result of the adoption of a policy by Fireman's Fund Insurance Company to terminate the employment status of disabled employees who are unable to return to work.

• ILGWU - The Firm represents a class of retired members of the ILGWU who are challenging the transfer of ILGWU Death Benefit Fund assets to the ILGWU in violation of the terms of the Plan term.

• BellSouth - The Firm represents a class of retirees against BellSouth Corporation and AT&T Inc. regarding the BellSouth Telephone Concession promised to employees after they retire or provided to retirees living outside of an area served by BellSouth ("Out-of-Area Telephone Concession").

• AMICUS AND OTHER ERISA ADVICE Cohen Milstein's Employee Benefits practice group has represented entities as amicus and provided advice on ERISA issues. For example, we have represented the following entities in filing amicus briefs:


• The Pension Rights Center as amicus curiae before the United States Supreme Court supporting the

petitioners on the merits in Tibble v. Edison International, No. 13-550 (filed Dec. 9, 2014), arguing that 401(k) plan fiduciaries must monitor the fees charged by plan investments on a periodic basis, and that participants can sue to require fiduciaries to replace overpriced investment options in 401(k) plans more than six years after the investment options were initially added to the plan.

• National Association of Insurance Commissioners as amicus before the United States Supreme Court in Rush Prudential HMO, Inc. v. Moran, 536 U.S. 355 (2002) a case involving the scope of ERISA preemption of state insurance laws. See Brief of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners As Amicus Curiae In Support of Respondents, 2001 WL 1673395 (filed Nov. 7, 2001).

• The Pension Rights Center as amicus before the United States Supreme Court supporting certiorari in Harley v. 3M Company, 537 U.S. 1106 (2003) involving the issue of whether plan participants may sue to recover losses to overfunded defined benefit plans caused by a breach of fiduciary duty. See Brief of the Pension Rights Center as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioners, 2002 WL 32133446 (filed Nov. 14, 2002).

• The Firm has also served as counsel for Independent Fiduciaries in connection with the evaluation of proposed settlements of litigation involving pension plans.

In addition the Firm has provided advice to the AFL-CIO in connection with ERISA preemption issues raised by state health care legislation, provided expert services on ERISA legal issues, and provided representation to a Trust Fund investigating claims for fiduciary breaches by its service providers. Some of the firm’s most recent significant ERISA cases include:

• Improperly Classified “Church Plan” Litigation. Cohen Milstein has taken a groundbreaking approach to

complaints of hospitals with church affiliations violating the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The U.S. Supreme Court said in December that it will review appellate decisions the firm has won in the Third, Seventh and Ninth Circuits against New Jersey’s Saint Peter’s Healthcare System, Illinois-based Advocate Healthcare Network and Dignity Health in California that found their retirement plans cannot be exempted from ERISA requirements as “church plans” under the law. In the Dignity Health case, the putative class claims that the nonprofit hospital chain underfunded its retirement plans by more than $1.2 billion and failed to provide proper notification to class members or the secretary of labor.

• Jeld-Wen Employee Stock Ownership & Retirement Plan Litigation (No. 1:12-cv-1207, United States District Court District of Oregon). The Settlement required Defendants and JELD-WEN to provide both monetary and non-monetary relief to Class Members. The monetary relief required Defendants to pay $15.5 million to the Class which was distributed to class members through their JELD-WEN ESOP account.

• Severstal Wheeling, Inc. Retirement Plan Litigation (No. 15-2725, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit). A bench trial was held before the Honorable Laura Taylor Swain from July 8th through July 22, 2014. The Court issued a trial decision on August 10, 2015 finding that Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the two Severstal Plans while they served as investment manager for those Plans in 2008 and until May 19, 2009 and entered judgment of more than $15 million in favor of Plaintiffs. The district court decision was affirmed by the Circuit Court on August 30, 2016.

• In re Beacon Associates Litigation (No. 09-cv-0777, United States District Court for the Southern District of New York). Class action settlement of $219 million for trustees and participants in ERISA-covered


employee benefit plans whose assets were lost through investments made on their behalf by Beacon Associates LLC I & II in the investment schemes of Bernard Madoff.

• Tuten v. United Airlines, Inc. (No. 1:12-cv-01561, United States District Court for the District of Colorado). This case his lawsuit alleged that United Airlines, Inc. failed to make contributions to its pilots’ accounts into the United pension plan for periods of military leave based on each pilot’s 12-month average earnings before the period of military leave, as required by USERRA. A settlement with United Airlines, Inc. which required payment of $6.15 million plus non-monetary prospective relief was reached on August 14, 2013.


Cohen Milstein’s Awards & Recognition

In 2017, Law360 selects Cohen Milstein as a Competition Practice Group of the Year and a Class Action Practice Group of the Year.

In 2016, Law360 Names Cohen Milstein’s Richard A. Koffman a Competition Law MVP.

In 2016, Cohen Milstein Partner Martha Geer was selected as a 2016 North Carolina Leaders in the Law Honoree.

In 2016, the Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs named Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll a recipient of its 2016 Outstanding Achievement Award.

In 2016, for the eighth consecutive year, Cohen Milstein was recognized by The Legal 500 as one of the leading plaintiff class action antitrust firms in the United States.

In 2016, Agnieszka Fryszman, Joel Laitman, Chris Lometti, Kit Pierson, Joe Sellers and Steve Toll were named to the 2016 Lawdragon 500 Leading Lawyers in America. As one of the most elite distinctions in the legal profession, the annual Lawdragon 500 recognizes the ‘best of the best’ of the 1.2 million members of the U.S. legal profession.

In 2016, Law360 named Cohen Milstein Partner Julie Goldsmith Reiser one of the 25 Most Influential Women in Securities Law.

In 2016, Cohen Milstein is named to the National Law Journal’s “Plaintiffs Hot List” for the fifth time in six years.

In 2016, Law360 names Cohen Milstein as one of the top firms for female attorneys.

In 2015, Law360 selects Cohen Milstein as the sole plaintiff firm to be selected in two "Practice Groups of the Year" categories and one of only five class action firms recognized.

In 2015, Cohen Milstein was named an Elite Trial Lawyer Firm by the National Law Journal for the second year in a row.

In 2015, Cohen Milstein Partner Steven J. Toll named a Law360 MVP in Securities Law.

In 2015, Cohen Milstein is selected as a "Most Feared Plaintiffs Firm" by Law360 for the third year in a row.

In 2015, Partner Richard Koffman was named, for the fifth consecutive year, in the Legal 500 United States "Leading Lawyers" list under the category of "Litigation - Mass Tort and Class Action: Plaintiff Representation - Antitrust".

In 2015, Cohen Milstein Attorney Jeffrey Dubner was named a National Law Journal D.C. Rising Star.

In 2015, five Cohen Milstein Attorneys were named to the 2016 The Best Lawyers in America© list.

In 2015, Cohen Milstein's Denver office was named “Antitrust Law Firm of the Year – Colorado” by Global Law Experts.

In 2015, Partners Theodore J. Leopold and Leslie M. Kroeger and Of Counsel Attorney Stephan A. LeClainche were selected to the 2015 Florida Super Lawyers list and Adam J. Langino was selected to the Florida Rising Stars list.

In 2015, Cohen Milstein attorneys R. Joseph Barton, Andrew Friedman, Agnieszka Fryszman, Karen Handorf, Kit A. Pierson, Julie Reiser, Joseph M. Sellers, Daniel A. Small, Daniel S. Sommers, Steven J. Toll and Christine E. Webber were selected as Washington DC Super Lawyers.


In 2015, Cohen Milstein attorneys Laura Alexander, Monya Bunch, S. Douglas Bunch, Joshua S. Devore, Jeffrey Dubner, Johanna Hickman, Kalpana Kotagal, Emmy Levens, and David Young were selected as Washington DC Rising Stars by Super Lawyers.

In 2015, for the fourth time in five years, Cohen Milstein was selected to the National Law Journal Plaintiffs’ Hot List

In 2015, Cohen Milstein Partner Carol V. Gilden was selected as "Pension Funds Litigation Attorney of the Year in Illinois" for the second year in a row by the Corporate INTL Legal Awards.

In 2014, Cohen Milstein's Antitrust Practice was selected as a Practice Group of the Year by Law360.

In 2014, Cohen Milstein Partner Kit Pierson was selected as an MVP by Law360.

In 2014, Cohen Milstein was named a "Most Feared Plaintiffs Firm" by Law360 for the second year in a row.

In 2014, Cohen Milstein was selected as an Elite Trial Lawyer firm by the National Law Journal.

Cohen Milstein Partners Steven J. Toll, Joseph M. Sellers, Kit A. Pierson, and Agnieszka M. Fryszman Selected to the 2014 Lawdragon 500.

Joseph M. Sellers, Theodore J. Leopold, and Leslie M. Kroeger Make "Best Lawyers' List" for 2015.

Released in 2014, the 2013 SCAS 50 Report on Total Securities Class Action Settlements once again ranked Cohen Milstein as a top firm.

In 2014, Theodore J. Leopold, a partner at Cohen Milstein, was been selected to the Top 100 Miami Florida Super Lawyers list. Partner Leslie M. Kroeger was selected to the 2014 Florida Super Lawyers list and Diana L. Martin was selected to the Florida Rising Stars list.

In 2014, Cohen Milstein attorneys Leslie M. Kroeger and Adam J. Langino were both recognized in the 2014 edition of Florida Trend’s Florida Legal Elite™. Kroeger is recognized as Legal Elite and Langino is listed as an Up-and-Comer.

In 2014, Cohen Milstein was selected to the selected to the National Law Journal's Midsize Hot List.

In 2014, Cohen Milstein was recognized as a "Highly Recommended Washington, DC Litigation Firm" by Benchmark Plaintiff: The Definitive Guide to America’s Leading Plaintiff Firms and Attorneys.

In 2014, Cohen Milstein was ranked as a Leading Plaintiff Class Action Antitrust Firm in the United States by the Legal 500 for the sixth year in a row.

In 2014, Partner Richard Koffman was named, for the fourth consecutive year, in the Legal 500 United States "Leading Lawyers" list under the category of "Litigation - Mass Tort and Class Action: Plaintiff Representation - Antitrust".

In 2014, Cohen Milstein attorneys Christopher Cormier, Agnieszka Fryszman, Julie Goldsmith Reiser, Joseph Sellers, Daniel Sommers, and Steven Toll were recognized as Local Litigation Stars by Benchmark Plaintiff: The Definitive Guide to America’s Leading Plaintiff Firms and Attorneys.

In 2014, Cohen Milstein attorneys R. Joseph Barton, Andrew Friedman, Agnieszka Fryszman, Karen Handorf, Kit A. Pierson, Julie Reiser, Joseph M. Sellers, Daniel A. Small, Daniel S. Sommers, Steven J. Toll and Christine E. Webber were selected as Washington DC Super Lawyers.

In 2014, Cohen Milstein attorneys Laura Alexander, Monya Bunch, S. Douglas Bunch, Joshua S. Devore, Jeffrey Dubner, Johanna Hickman, Joshua Kolsky, Kalpana Kotagal, Emmy Levens, Michelle Yau and David Young were selected as Washington DC Rising Stars by Super Lawyers.


In 2014, Cohen Milstein Partner Carol V. Gilden was selected as the Illinois Pension Fund Attorney of the Year.

In 2014, Best Lawyers named Cohen Milstein Partner Joseph Sellers D.C. Litigation - Labor & Employment Lawyer of the Year.

In 2013, for the third-year in a row, Cohen Milstein was selected to the National Law Journal Plaintiffs’ Hot List.

In 2013, Cohen Milstein was named a "Most Feared Plaintiffs Firm" by Law360.

In 2013, Cohen Milstein was ranked as a Leading Plaintiff Class Action Antitrust Firm in the United States by the Legal 500 for the fifth year in a row.

In 2013, Cohen Milstein attorneys Joseph Barton, Andrew Friedman, Agnieszka Fryszman, Karen Handorf, Kit A. Pierson, Julie G. Reiser, Joseph M. Sellers, Daniel A. Small, Daniel S. Sommers, Steven J. Toll, and Christine E. Webber were selected as Washington DC Super Lawyers.

In 2013, Cohen Milstein attorneys Joshua Devore and Michelle Yau were selected as Washington DC Rising Stars by Super Lawyers.

In 2013, Cohen Milstein Partner Carol V. Gilden was selected as a 2013 Illinois Super Lawyer. She has been selected every year since 2005.

In 2012, for the second-year in a row, Cohen Milstein was selected to the National Law Journal Plaintiffs’ Hot List.

In 2012, Cohen Milstein was the recipient of the Judith M. Conti Pro Bono Law Firm of the Year Award from the Employment Justice Center.

In 2012, Cohen Milstein was recognized as a "Highly Recommended Washington, DC Litigation Firm" by Benchmark Plaintiff: The Definitive Guide to America’s Leading Plaintiff Firms and Attorneys.

In 2012, Cohen Milstein was ranked as a top firm by the 2011 SCAS Report on Total Securities Class Action Settlements.

In 2012, Cohen Milstein was ranked as a Leading Plaintiff Class Action Antitrust Firm in the United States by the Legal 500 for the fourth year in a row.

In 2012, Partner Joseph M. Sellers was selected as a Washington DC Super Lawyer. Mr. Sellers was also selected for this prestigious award in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2012.

In 2012, Partner Steven J. Toll was selected as a Washington DC Super Lawyer. Mr. Toll was also selected for this prestigious award in 2007, 2009, 2010, and 2011.

In 2012, Partner Daniel S. Sommers was selected as a Washington DC Super Lawyer. Mr. Sommers was also selected for this prestigious award in 2011.

In 2012, Partner Christine E. Webber was selected as a Washington DC Super Lawyer. Ms. Webber was also selected for this prestigious award in 2007.

In 2012, Partner Agnieszka M. Fryszman was selected as a Washington DC Super Lawyer.

In 2012, Partner Kit A. Pierson was selected as a Washington DC Super Lawyer.

In 2012, Partner Carol V. Gilden was selected as an Illinois Super Lawyer. Ms. Gilden was also selected for this prestigious award in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011.

In 2011, Cohen Milstein was selected to the National Law Journal Plaintiffs’ Hot List.


In 2011, Partner Joseph M. Sellers was selected as a "Visionary" by The National Law Journal.

In 2011, Partner J. Douglas Richards, Of Counsel Joel Laitman, and Of Counsel Christoper Lometti were selected as New York - Metro Super Lawyers.

In 2011, Partner Joseph M. Sellers and the Keepseagle v. Vilsack team were selected as a finalist for the 2011 Trial Lawyer of the Year Award from the Public Justice Foundation.

In 2011, Cohen Milstein was ranked as a Leading Plaintiff Class Action Antitrust Firm in the United States by the Legal 500 for the third year in a row.

In 2011, Partners Steven Toll, Joseph Sellers, and Daniel Sommers were selected as Washington DC Super Lawyers. Partner J. Douglas Richards, Of Counsel Joel Laitman and Christoper Lometti were selected as New York - Metro Super Lawyers. Partner Carol Gilden was selected as an Illinois Super Lawyer.

In 2011, Cohen Milstein was a recipient of The National Law Journal’s Pro Bono Award. The Firm was named one of the “six firms that best reflect the pro bono tradition.”

In 2010, Partner Joseph M. Sellers was selected as one of “The Decade’s Most Influential Lawyers” by The National Law Journal.

In 2010, Partner Steven J. Toll was named one of Law360’s “Most Admired Attorneys”.

In 2010, Partner Andrew N. Friedman was selected as a Washington DC Super Lawyer.

In 2010, Partner Agnieszka M. Fryszman was selected as a finalist for the Trial Lawyer of the Year Award from the Public Justice Foundation.

In 2010, Partners Joseph M. Sellers and Agnieszka M. Fryszman were both selected as one of the Lawdragon 500 Leading Lawyers in America.

In 2010, Cohen Milstein was once again ranked as a Leading Plaintiff Class Action Antitrust Firm in the United States by the Legal 500.

In 2009, Partner Steven J. Toll was named a Top Attorney in Corporate Litigation for Securities Litigation by Super Lawyers.

In 2009, Partners Joseph M. Sellers and Christine E. Webber were named as Top Washington Lawyers by the Washingtonian Magazine.

In 2009, Cohen Milstein was recognized as one of the top 50 law offices in Washington D.C. for diversity efforts.

In 2009, Cohen Milstein was nominated for the prestigious Class Action Law Firm of the Year award by Global Pensions magazine for the third year in a row.

Cohen Milstein ranked as a 2009 Leading Plaintiff Class Action Antitrust Firm in the United States by The Legal500.

The 2008 SCAS Report on Total Securities Class Action Settlements ranked Cohen Milstein as a top firm for the second year in a row.

In 2008, Cohen Milstein was nominated for the prestigious Class Action Law Firm of the Year award by Global Pensions magazine for the second year in a row.

In 2008, Managing Partner Steven J. Toll was named one of Lawdragon’s 100 Lawyers You Need to Know in Securities Litigation.


http://www.cohenmilstein.com/news.php?NewsID=443

http://www.cohenmilstein.com/news.php?NewsID=443

Attorney Profiles – Partners

Karen L. Handorf

Karen L. Handorf is a Partner at Cohen Milstein, and chair of the Firm’s Employee Benefits (ERISA) Practice Group. She joined the Firm in 2007, following a distinguished career in government service, litigating ERISA cases in federal appellate and district courts. In her role as head of the Employee Benefits Practice, Ms. Handorf represents the interests of employees, retirees, plan participants and beneficiaries in ERISA cases in the district courts and on appeal.

Ms. Handorf is involved in litigation and appeals involving a broad range of employee benefits issues including church plans. In Kaplan v. St. Peter’s Healthcare System, she represents a class of 2,800 participants in an alleged church plan, a case in which the Court of Appeals upheld the rights of St. Peter’s pension fund participants to a fully funded pension plan. In addition, she currently leads a team of litigators in a series of church plan lawsuits alleging that health care systems wrongfully claim their benefit plans are exempt from ERISA’s protection. Ms. Handorf is overseeing and developing these cases.

Prior to joining Cohen Milstein, Ms. Handorf was an attorney for the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), where she litigated ERISA cases in federal appellate and district courts for 25 years. While at the DOL, she played a major role in formulating the Government’s position on ERISA issues expressed in amicus briefs filed by the Solicitor General in the United States Supreme Court.

She began her ERISA career as a trial attorney in the Plan Benefits Security Division (PBSD), where she litigated actions brought by the Secretary of Labor for violations of the fiduciary standards of ERISA and handled appellate matters. In 1989, she was appointed Counsel for Decentralized and Special Litigation responsible for supervising the DOL’s ERISA appellate litigation, district court litigation brought by regional offices of the Solicitor of Labor and administrative litigation involving the civil penalty provisions of ERISA. At the DOL, Ms. Handorf established and supervised PBSD’s amicus brief writing program, which addressed a wide range of novel and difficult ERISA issues in both state and federal court. In 2001, she was appointed Deputy Associate Solicitor of PBSD. As the Deputy Associate Solicitor, she was responsible for overseeing litigation brought by the Secretary of Labor and legal advice provided to the Employee Benefit Security Administration, which administers Title I of ERISA. In 2005, she returned to her position as supervisor of the ERISA appellate and amicus brief writing program, serving as Counsel for Appellate and Special Litigation.

Currently, Ms. Handorf is litigating a series of church plan cases, including:

• Saint Peter's Healthcare System Church Plan Litigation: Cohen Milstein is co-lead counsel in Kaplan v. St. Peter’s Healthcare System alleging that the defendants wrongfully claim their pension plan is exempt from ERISA protection. Ms. Handorf argued the case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which unanimously ruled that St, Peter’s pension plan does not qualify as a "church plan." The Third Circuit further noted that as of 2012, religiously affiliated hospitals accounted for seven of the nation’s 10 largest nonprofit healthcare systems and that to construe the church plan exemption to apply to such hospitals would defeat the purpose of ERISA. The ruling is likely to set the tone for other church plan litigation.

Her past successes include:


• Goodyear Litigation: Ms. Handorf represented a class of 30,000 Goodyear union retirees in Redington v. Goodyear (N.D. Ohio), in which Cohen Milstein obtained approval of a class action settlement between the retirees, Goodyear and the United Steel Workers, resulting in the establishment of a $1 billion trust through which retiree health care benefits will be provided in the future.

Ms. Handorf is a recipient of the Department of Labor Distinguished Career Service Award, and received Exceptional Achievement Awards for her work on ERISA 401(k) plan remedies, the amicus brief in the Enron litigation, retiree health care, the amicus program in general, the appellate brief in the Department’s Tower litigation, termination annuities litigation and multiple employer welfare arrangement (MEWAs) litigation.

Ms. Handorf has been recognized for her expertise by her colleagues in the ERISA bar, who named her a Fellow of the American College of Employee Benefits Counsel. She is a frequent speaker on ERISA issues for the ABA, various bar associations and private seminars, and serves as plaintiffs' co-chair of preemption subcommittee of the Employee Benefits Committee of the ABA's Labor Section. In 2016, she was named to the Best Lawyers in America.

Ms. Handorf attended the University of Wisconsin-River Falls, where she received a B.S. in Speech and History, and earned her law degree from the University of Wisconsin Law School.

Julie Goldsmith Reiser

Julie Goldsmith Reiser is a Partner at Cohen Milstein, and a member of the Securities Litigation & Investor Protection and Employee Benefits Practice Groups. Ms. Reiser’s practice includes representing public pension plans, institutional investors, retirees and plan participants in high-stakes securities and ERISA litigation.

Known for her hands-on approach, strong advocacy and critical thinking, Ms. Reiser has led litigation teams in several complex class actions, including a $500 million settlement related to Countrywide’s issuance of mortgage-backed securities (“MBS”) and the Fifth Circuit affirmation of an investor class in the BP securities fraud litigation stemming from the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill, which settled for $175 million. In those cases, Ms. Reiser’s clients have benefited from her oral and written advocacy, her judgment, and her tenacious work on their behalf. As a result of those and other successes, Ms. Reiser has been recognized as one of the top 25 Influential Women in Securities Law by Law360.

Ms. Reiser demonstrates a keen understanding of complex financial and economic issues. She is known for bringing an interactive and cooperative approach to litigation teams, a style that has generated remarkable results for the classes she represents.

Currently, Ms. Reiser is litigating the following notable matters:

In re BP Securities Litigation: Ms. Reiser represents the New York State Common Retirement Fund as co-lead plaintiff in a securities class action filed in 2010, alleging that BP injured investors by intentionally downplaying the severity of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and preventing investors from learning the magnitude of the disaster. Ms. Reiser has taken the lead in all aspects of this litigation: case development, motion practice, oversight and implementation of discovery strategies, depositions, expert discovery and argument. After successfully arguing for class certification to the district court, Ms. Reiser presented plaintiffs’ defense of that court’s decision to the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, which affirmed the class. The case settled for $175 million a few weeks before trials was set to begin.


In re Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. Third-Party Payor Litigation: Ms. Reiser represents a putative class of third-party payors arising from a scheme perpetrated by Valeant, its top executives, and co-conspirators at affiliated specialty pharmacies to shield the Company’s drugs from competition, fraudulently inflate the prices of its products, and artificially boost sales at the expense of third party payors.

St. Peter’s Health care System Church Plan Litigation: Cohen Milstein is counsel to a class of defined benefit participants in Kaplan v. St. Peter’s Healthcare System, which allege that the hospital’s plan is not a church plan and thus the class is entitled to ERISA’s protections. In district court, Cohen Milstein succeeded in showing that only a church may establish a church plan and thus St. Peter’s Healthcare System is not entitled to exemption from ERISA. Cohen Milstein then prevailed in the Third Circuit, which affirmed the district court’s holdings. This case and two others decided unanimously in participants’ favor by the Seventh and Ninth Circuits, will be reviewed by the Supreme Court this term. Using this same theory of liability, Ms. Reiser is currently litigating actions against many other healthcare systems that are improperly claiming to be exempt from ERISA.

Ms. Reiser’s successes include:

Countrywide Mortgage Backed Securities Litigation: Ms. Reiser represented the Iowa, Oregon and Orange County public retirement systems in class action litigation related to Countrywide’s issuance of mortgage-backed securities, which culminated in a landmark $500 million settlement. Over the course of the litigation, Ms. Reiser argued on investors’ behalf at the motion to dismiss stage. She also handled various arguments related to discovery disputes, and oversaw merits and expert discovery. She took a majority of the fact depositions and was recognized for having teased a number of salient points from witnesses during the depositions. Ms. Reiser also took the lead in working with experts to maximize damages.

Policemen’s Annuity and Benefit Fund of the City of Chicago, et al. v. Bank of America, NA, et al.: Ms. Reiser developed and litigated this novel class action, challenging trustee inaction in preventing investor losses. She represented the Arkansas Public Employees Retirement System, IPERS and Chicago Laborers in the case, which settled for $69 million. Ms. Reiser worked with plaintiffs’ statistician to develop a sampling methodology for testing whether mortgages were underwritten properly and with plaintiffs’ economist in the bid for class certification and approach to damages. At the final hearing, Judge Katherine B. Forrest commended the investors’ legal team: “This is a very, very good result for the plaintiffs … [and] is something of which plaintiff counsel can be proud.”

In addition, Ms. Reiser has represented plaintiffs in employment cases. In Wade v. Kroger (W.D. Ky.), she represented African American employees who received a $16 million settlement to resolve claims that the retailer Kroger had discriminated against them in pay and promotions. She was also involved in Beck v. The Boeing Co. (W. D. Wash.), a case alleging sex discrimination in compensation and promotions that settled for $72.5 million.

Ms. Reiser is a noted speaker, often called on to discuss important issues such as the class standing doctrine.

Ms. Reiser is the author of “Pre-Dispute Arbitration Clauses: Taking the Alternative Out of Dispute Resolution,” Bloomberg BNA, Class Action Litigation Report, December 11, 2015. Ms. Reiser was named a 2016 winner of the Burton Awards, placing her among the “finest law firm writers” in the nation. After its publication, Paul Bland, Executive Director of Public Justice wrote: “This is invaluable advocacy that takes


industry-side advocacy and exposes its flaws and failings. I’m very glad to see this kind of very high quality advocacy and critical thinking.”

Ms. Reiser also is the co-author of “Omnicare: Negligence is the New Strict Liability When Pleading Omissions Under the Securities Act,” Bloomberg BNA, Corporate Law & Accountability Report, April 10, 2015; the author of “Dodd Frank’s Protections for Senior Citizens: An Important, Yet Insufficient Step,” University of Cincinnati Law Review, Volume 81, Issue 2, May 30, 2013; “Why Courts Should Favor Certification of MBS Actions,” ABA Securities Litigation Journal, Volume 22, Number 1, Fall 2011; and the co-author of “The Misapplication of American Pipe Tolling Principles,” ABA Securities Litigation Journal, Volume 21, Number 2, Winter 2011. She also co-authored Opt-Outs: Making Private Enforcement of the Securities Laws Even Better, featured in the Winter/Spring 2008 edition of the ABA's Class Action and Derivative Suit Committee Newsletter and Companies in the Cross Hairs: When Plaintiffs Lawyers Choose Their Targets, They Look for These Employment Practices, The Legal Times, February 21, 2005.

Ms. Reiser attended Vassar College, graduating with honors, and earned her J.D. at the University of Virginia School of Law. She has served as a board member at Seattle Works and the Pacific Northwest Ballet.

Michelle C. Yau

Michelle C. Yau is a Partner at Cohen Milstein, and a member of the Firm’s Employee Benefits (ERISA) Practice Group. In her role, Ms. Yau represents the interests of employees, retirees, plan participants or beneficiaries in ERISA cases. Her practice specializes in ERISA cases involving complex financial transactions or actuarial issues. Ms. Yau brings to her practice government experience enforcing labor statutes and a grasp of complex financial instruments gained from her training as a financial analyst. Drawing on those experiences, she is able to fulfill her passion for protecting pension plan participants.

Ms. Yau litigated some of the most significant ERISA lawsuits to emerge from the Madoff Ponzi scheme. In re Beacon Assoc. Litig., she represented a multi-plan class of participants, beneficiaries and fiduciaries, which settled along with other consolidated cases for $219 million in 2013, representing 70% of the Class members’ out-of-pocket losses. The judge praised the settlement, describing the outcome as “extraordinary” and the praising the “hard work” done by plaintiffs’ counsel, including Cohen Milstein. In re Austin Capital Mgmt. Litig., which was settled by the Department of Labor on the ERISA class on very favorable terms, Ms. Yau alleged that Madoff’s returns, based on his advertised investment strategy, were mathematically impossible, a fact Austin Capital ought to have recognized well before the fraud was revealed.

Prior to joining Cohen Milstein in 2007, Ms. Yau was an Honors Program Attorney at the Department of Labor where she enforced and administered of a variety of labor statutes. Before law school, she worked as a financial analyst at Goldman, Sachs & Co. in the Financial Institutions Group of the Investment Banking Division.

Ms. Yau is presently litigating a series of church plan lawsuits alleging that health care systems wrongfully claim their benefit plans are exempt from ERISA’s protection. She oversees the day-to-day management of these cases, including coordinating all the aspects of the litigation.

Currently, Ms. Yau is representing clients in the following notable matters:


• St. Peter’s Health care System Church Plan Litigation: Cohen Milstein is counsel to a class of defined benefit participants in Kaplan v. St. Peter’s Healthcare System, which allege that the hospital’s plan is not a church plan and thus the class is entitled to ERISA’s protections. In district court, Cohen Milstein succeeded in showing that only a church may establish a church plan and thus St. Peter’s Healthcare System is not entitled to exemption from ERISA. Cohen Milstein then prevailed in the Third Circuit, which affirmed the district court’s holdings.

• St. Anthony Medical Center Church Plan Litigation: Cohen Milstein is counsel to a class of defined benefit participants in Owens et al. v. St. Anthony Medical Center et al., which allege that the Medical Center violated numerous provisions of ERISA by improperly operating the plan as exempt from ERISA’s protections. As a result the class of participants suffered cutbacks as much as 40% of their promised benefits.

• Trinity Church Plan Litigation: Cohen Milstein is counsel to a class of defined benefit participants in Lann et al. v. Trinity Health, which allege that the hospital’s plan is not a church plan and thus the class is entitled to ERISA’s protections,

• Advocate Health Care Church Plan Litigation: Cohen Milstein, along with Keller Rohrback, is counsel to a class of defined benefit participants in Stapleton et al. v. Advocate Health Care Network and Facilities et al., which allege that the hospital’s plan is not a church plan and thus the class is entitled to ERISA’s protections. In district court, counsel succeeded in showing that only a church may establish a church plan and thus Advocate is not entitled to exemption from ERISA. Plaintiffs then prevailed in the Seventh Circuit, which affirmed the district court’s holdings.

• U.S. Bancorp Pension Plan Litigation: Cohen Milstein is counsel to a class of pension plan participants alleging that the plan’s managers engaged in a risky, imprudent investment strategy by investing 100% of its assets in stocks, thus causing the plan to lose more than $1 billion during the collapse of the equities market in 2008. Ms. Yau developed the litigation and is overseeing all aspects of the litigation.

Ms. Yau has litigated the following case successfully:

• Merrill Lynch ERISA Litigation: Cohen Milstein served as interim co-lead counsel in a class action alleging that fiduciaries of the Merrill Lynch retirement plans imprudently purchased and held inflated Merrill employer stock for the retirement accounts of the Companies’ employees. The litigation was resolved for $75 million. Ms. Yau was engaged in all aspects of the litigation.

• Madoff Ponzi Scheme Litigation: Cohen Milstein represented a multi-plan class of participants, beneficiaries and fiduciaries in re Beacon Assoc. Litig. The $219 million settlement in 2013 represented 70% of the Class members’ out-of-pocket losses. Ms. Yau was engaged in all aspects of the litigation.

• Weyerhauser Pension Plan Litigation: Cohen Milstein was lead counsel in a lawsuit alleging that the Weyerhaeuser Company caused its Defined Benefit Retirement Plans to engage in a risky investment strategy involving alternative investments and derivatives, causing the Plans’ master trust to become underfunded. A settlement was reached for injunctive relief on behalf of Plans’ participants and beneficiaries. Ms. Yau was engaged in all aspects of the litigation.

Ms. Yau received her law degree from Harvard Law School in 2003, where she was awarded several public interest fellowships, including the Heyman Fellowship for academic excellence and a demonstrated commitment to federal public service. Ms. Yau graduated Phi Beta Kappa with a B.A. in Mathematics from the University of Virginia. Ms. Yau was also selected as an Echols Scholar and awarded the Student Council Scholarship for leadership, academic achievement and community service. Law360 named Ms. Yau a Rising Star Under 40.


Attorney Profiles – Of Counsel & Associates Mary J. Bortscheller Mary J. Bortscheller is an Associate at Cohen Milstein, and a member of the Firm’s Employee Benefits Practice Group. In that role, Ms. Bortscheller represents the interests of employees, retirees, and plan participants and beneficiaries in ERISA cases in the district court and on appeal. Ms. Bortscheller is a strong, hands-on, strategic litigator, thoroughly versed in the complexities of ERISA law. At present, Ms. Bortscheller is engaged in litigating a number of so-called “church plan” lawsuits. These cutting-edge legal cases assert that many non-profit health care systems in the United States wrongfully claim their benefit plans are exempt from ERISA regulation under the church plan exemption. Currently, Cohen Milstein serves as lead or co-lead counsel in 12 separate cases in various jurisdictions throughout the U.S. Ms. Bortscheller is currently litigating the following matters:

• Trinity Health Corporation Church Plan Litigation: Cohen Milstein is co-lead counsel in Lann v. Trinity Health Corp., a lawsuit alleging that Trinity is violating numerous provisions of ERISA while wrongfully claiming that its defined benefit pension plan is exempt from ERISA because it is a church plan. Ms. Bortscheller is Lead Associate in the case, engaged in all aspects of the litigation including motions practice, discovery, the mediation process and finalizing the settlement. The case is ongoing.

• Catholic Health East Church Plan Litigation: Cohen Milstein is co-counsel in Chavies v. Catholic Health East, alleging that the health care system wrongfully claims its defined benefit pension plan is exempt from ERISA as a church plan. As the Lead Associate on this case, Ms. Bortscheller works on all aspects of the lawsuit, including fact and expert discovery, the mediation process and in finalizing the settlement. The case is ongoing.

• U.S. Bancorp Pension Plan Litigation: Cohen Milstein is co-lead counsel to an interim class of pension plan participants alleging that the plan’s managers engaged in a risky, imprudent investment strategy by investing almost 100% of its assets in stocks, thus causing the plan to lose more than $1 billion during the collapse of the equities market in 2008. As Lead Associate on the case, Ms. Bortscheller is involved in all aspects of the litigation, including the initial case investigation and drafting of the complaint, motions practice, discovery and the appellate process. The case is ongoing.

In addition to her ERISA case work, Ms. Bortscheller represents, pro bono, unaccompanied minor clients in immigration proceedings. Prior to joining Cohen Milstein in 2013, Ms. Bortscheller practiced at a boutique commercial litigation firm based in Chicago, where she represented plaintiffs in antitrust and qui tam matters, as well as defendants in general commercial litigation. Ms. Bortscheller graduated from Gustavus Adolphus College with a B.A., cum laude, in Political Science, and received her J.D., cum laude, from American University, Washington College of Law. During law school, she served as Features Editor and Senior Editor of Sustainable Development Law & Policy and was a staff member of the American University International Law Review. Ms. Bortscheller served as a judicial intern with the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.


Before attending law school, Ms. Bortscheller served in the United States Peace Corps teaching English as a foreign language in Sichuan Province, China. Following law school, she was a volunteer for the Chicago Legal Clinic, Inc.'s Foreclosure Defense Project.

Jamie Bowers

Jamie Bowers is an Associate at Cohen Milstein and a member of the Firm’s Employee Benefits Practice Group. In her role, Ms. Bowers represents the interests of employees, retirees, plan participants and beneficiaries in ERISA cases across the country.

Prior to joining Cohen Milstein, Ms. Bowers served as a judicial law clerk for the Honorable Gary R. Jones at the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida, Gainesville Division. In this role she dealt with a variety of issues arising under federal law, including initial criminal appearances, plea changes, writs of habeas corpus, prisoner litigation, employment litigation, personal injury litigation, civil rights litigation, mass torts litigation, social security disability, and various matters under the Federal Rules of Civil and Criminal Procedure.

Ms. Bowers attended Duke University, graduating with a B.A. in Environmental Science in 2011. She earned her J.D. from Georgetown University Law Center in 2014. During law school, Ms. Bowers served on the Executive Board as the Administrative Editor of the Georgetown Environmental Law Review.

Ms. Bowers is the author of Environmental Justice Implications of the Current Hydraulic Fracturing Regulatory Regime, 32 Mich. Env. L. Jour. 93 (2013).

Julia Horwitz Julia Horwitz is an Associate at Cohen Milstein and a member of the Firm’s Employee Benefits Practice Group. In her role, Ms. Horwitz represents the interests of employees, retirees, plan participants and beneficiaries in ERISA cases across the country. Prior to joining Cohen Milstein, Ms. Horwitz served as a law clerk for the Honorable Mary Ellen Coster Williams at the United States Court of Federal Claims. She worked at the Electronic Privacy Information Center in DC from 2012-2015, first as an Open Government Coordinator and Counsel, and then as the Director of the Consumer Privacy Project. Ms. Horwitz also was an Adjunct Professor at Georgetown Law School for a semester in 2013.

Ms. Horwitz is the co-author of The Open Government Clinic: Teaching the Basics of Lawyering, Indiana Law Review, Vol. 48 No. 1, October 2014; and co-editor of Privacy in the Modern Age: The Search for Solutions, New Press, April 28, 2015.

Ms. Horwitz attended Brown University, graduating Phi Beta Kappa with a B.A. in English, magna cum laude, in 2008. She earned her J.D. from the University of Chicago Law School in 2012. During law school, Ms. Horwitz was a staff member on the Edwin F. Mandel Legal Aid Clinic Employment Discrimination Project.


Scott Lempert Scott M. Lempert is Of Counsel at Cohen Milstein and a member of the firm's Employee Benefits (ERISA) Practice Group. He joined the firm in 2016 and represents the interests of employees, retirees, and plan participants and beneficiaries in ERISA cases in the district court and on appeal. Mr. Lempert is currently engaged in litigating a number of so-called “church plan” lawsuits. These cutting-edge legal cases assert that many non-profit health care systems in the United States wrongfully claim their benefit plans are exempt from ERISA regulation under the church plan exemption. Currently, Cohen Milstein serves as lead or co-lead counsel in 12 separate cases in various jurisdictions throughout the U.S. Mr. Lempert has over 20 years of experience litigating complex commercial class actions on behalf of employees, retirees and consumers in retiree benefits, employment, consumer protection and antitrust matters. Prior to joining Cohen Milstein he worked on many high-profile matters, including:

• In re: Unisys Corp. Retiree Medical Benefits ERISA Litig. – a series of cases involving representation of thousands of retirees, both as class actions and individually, seeking restoration of lifetime retiree medical benefits unlawfully terminated after retirement. These cases successfully achieved multiple settlements and court judgments providing lifetime retiree medical benefits for some and a continuing stream of payments to pay for medical benefits for other retirees.

• Raetsch v. Lucent Technologies – 36 million dollar settlement involving unlawful transfer of excess defined benefit pension funds to an account to pay for retiree medical benefits.

• Mehling v. New York Life Insurance Co. -- 14 million dollar settlement challenging excessive fees charged to New York Life employees and the company’s pension plan for Plan assets invested in New York Life owned mutual funds.

• Stagi v. National R.R. Passenger Corp. – Gender discrimination class action alleging unlawful disparate impact on female union employees resulting from enforcement of an Amtrak employee policy that blocked union employees from promotion to management. Settlement provided Amtrak employees compensation for denial of opportunities for promotion and the striking of the unlawful employment policy.

Mr. Lempert graduated Phi Beta Kappa from the University of Delaware with a B.A., magna cum laude, in Psychology, and received his J.D., from the University of Pennsylvania Law School. During law school, he served as Vice President of the Law School Government and was a Morris Fellow.


EXHIBIT B


ERIS

A LI

TIG

ATI

ON

SEATTLE PHOENIX NEW YORK SANTA BARBARA OAKLAND RONAN 800-776-6044 | [email protected] | www.krcomplexlit.com


SEATTLE OAKLAND NEW YORK PHOENIX SANTA BARBARA RONAN800-776-6044 | [email protected] | www.krcomplexlit.com

ABOUT KELLER ROHRBACK

Devoted to Justice

risks presented by this case. After a year and a half of intensive litigation, including extensive

members of the Class.” Getty v. Harmon (“SunAmerica Securities Litigation”), No. 98-0178 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 20, 1999) (Dwyer, J.).

Keller Rohrback’s lawyers excel by being prepared and persuasive. It’s a simple formula that combines our strengths: outstanding writing and courtroom skills, together with unparalleled passion and integrity. We have recovered billions of dollars for our clients, and have served as lead counsel in many prominent cases. Our lawyers are widely recognized

combating corporate fraud and misconduct. We have the talent

companies – and do so every day.

Who We AreKeller Rohrback’s Complex Litigation Group has a national

individual and class action cases. We represent employees and

whistleblower, environmental, and product liability cases. Our approach is straightforward—we represent clients who have been harmed by conduct that is wrong, and we litigate with passion and integrity to obtain the best results possible. Every

are skilled in court and in negotiations.

of federal and state law nationwide. We also are well known for our abilities to collaborate with co-counsel to achieve

on our reputation for working smartly with opposing counsel, and we are comfortable and experienced in coordinating high-stakes cases with simultaneous state and federal government investigations.

We have won verdicts in state and federal courts throughout the nation and have obtained judgments and settlements on behalf of clients in excess of seven billion dollars. Courts around the country have praised our work, and we are regularly appointed lead counsel in nationally prominent class action cases. Our work has had far-reaching impacts for our clients in a variety of settings and industries, creating a better, more accountable society.



Keller Rohrback L.L.P. is a pioneer in litigation under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), recovering to date over a billion dollars of

And this is not merely a matter of money, as important as that is. Keller Rohrback’s lawyers have worked tirelessly to shape the law in this area, so that the statute protects the interests of participants and

in the design of 401(k) plans, the structuring of ESOPs (Employee Stock Ownership

exceptions broadly to favor the employer’s and service providers’ interests, not the

cases.

Keller Rohrback attorneys have done this since the statute was enacted in 1974. In that

lawyers, albeit the most senior. We have a very deep bench in ERISA matters. Lawyers

briefs, and comments to regulatory agencies overseeing ERISA plans. We frequently are invited to make presentations at national legal education seminars on employee

We are involved in all aspects of ERISA litigation, from administrative reviews to district

U.S. Supreme Court. We are proud of our history, but we don’t rest on our laurels, so we listen carefully to employees’ stories and craft cases that enforce ERISA’s longstanding duties—which are the highest known to the law.

company stock case, , spawning an entire area of litigation that has resulted in billions of dollars being recovered around the country for employees and their retirement plans. Keller Rohrback’s Managing Partner and Complex Litigation Group Leader, Lynn Sarko, along with Derek Loeser, Erin Riley, and many others, pushed this area of the law forward with the WorldCom and Enron ERISA class actions—the latter of which resulted in the largest settlement in such a case, at over $264 million. More recently, we have led the charge with our private ESOP, church plan, and our 401k

ATTORNEYSLynn Lincoln SarkoLaurie AshtonGretchen Freeman CappioT. David CopleyAlison GafneyLaura R. GerberMatthew GerendGary GottoBenjamin GouldChristopher GraverAmy N. L. HansonKhesraw (Kash) KarmandDean N. KawamotoRon KilgardDavid KoCari Campen LaufenbergElizabeth A. Leland

Derek LoeserIan MensherGretchen ObristDavid PremingerJacob RichardsErin RileyKarin B. SwopeHavila C. UnreinAmy Williams-Derry


complex and rapidly developing area has been praised by our clients, our co-counsel, and federal courts throughout the

employment law, executive compensation, professional malpractice, constitutional law, and class action law.

the breadth of our expertise and experience in these areas.

.



Congress enacted ERISA in light of several highly publicized failures of private pension plans which left long-term employees at the end of their careers without

ERISA “seek[s] to ensure that employees will not be left empty-handed once employers

Lockheed Corp. v. Spink,

manage the plans’ assets prudently and that pensioners

promised. Keller Rohrback further supports ERISA pension

on pension issues. E.g., Brief for The Pension Rights Center as Amicus Curiae in Support of Respondent, Spokeo, Inc. v. RobinsCenter as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioner, Pundt v. Verizon Communications, Inc.

REPRESENTATIVE CASES

when the plan was terminated in an underfunded position. They alleged that following an outside takeover of Kaiser, the

the company. The lawsuit also alleged that the Kaiser retirement plan’s actuaries also contributed to the underfunding by committing malpractice. The court held that the malpractice claims against the actuaries were not preempted by ERISA. The case ultimately settled, resulting in the payments of millions of dollars to the class members.

No. 07-903 (W.D. Wash.)

were not given proper notice of these reductions. In conjunction with Washington Mutual’s bankruptcy proceedings, a settlement of $20 million was approved in 2010.

PENSION PLANS



pension plan to engage in a risky investment strategy involving alternative investments and derivatives, causing the Plans’ master trust to become underfunded. A settlement was reached for injunctive relief on behalf of Plans’ participants and

No. 11-1471 (S.D.N.Y.)

Monper v. Boeing,

Potter v. ConvergEx,

ERISA by “double-charging” for transition management and brokerage services. Defendants funneled trade orders to an

and unauthorized additional compensation.

Judy Hunter v. Berkshire Hathaway, Inc., No. 14-663 (N.D. Tex.)

ERISA plans: a pension plan and a 401(k) plan. The Complaint alleges that despite explicit plan language prohibiting the

No. 14-10427 (E.D. Mich.)Keller Rohrback serves as co-counsel in this lawsuit brought on behalf of a putative class of former employees of The Dow

PENSION PLANS



No. 16-00061 (D. Mont.)

Employees of Northern Montana Hospital. The complaint alleges that the members of these classes have been, or will be

Canseco v. Construction Laborers Pension Trust,

PENSION PLANS




For certain employees participating in pension plans, ERISA does not apply. If a plan is not subject to ERISA, there is no federal law requiring a sponsor to keep funding the plan, or requiring participants to get timely and accurate information

insurance if the plan can’t make payments. One of the few kinds of plans exempt from ERISA is

has been representing employees in federal lawsuits against large healthcare companies that claim their pension plans are “church plans.” The employees in the plans all work for large healthcare

corporations, but they often have assets on par

The lawsuits ask the courts to determine these pension plans are not “church plans” at all, force the employers to properly fund the plans, and give their employees the safety and security of ERISA protections. Keller Rohrback, together with Co-

REPRESENTATIVE CASES No. 13-11396 (E.D. Mich.)

Keller Rohrback served as Co-Lead Counsel in this lawsuit that alleged Defendants’ claim that the Ascension pension plans are exempt from ERISA’s protections because they were “church plans” was improper because, among other things, Ascension Health is not a church. A settlement providing for equitable relief, plus payment of $8 million to the plans was approved by

This case alleges that Dignity Health’s claim that its pension plan is exempt from ERISA’s protections because it is a “church

“entitled to summary judgment on her claim for declaratory relief,” because the Dignity Retirement Plan “is not a church plan

court’s opinion that Dignity Health’s pension plan was subject to ERISA and did not qualify for the church plan exemption.

PENSION PLANS: CHURCH PLANS


No. 13-02941 (D. N.J.)Keller Rohrback serves as Co-Lead Counsel in this lawsuit that alleges Defendants’ claim that the St. Peter’s Healthcare pension plan is exempt from ERISA’s protections because it is a “church plan” is improper because, among other things,

from ERISA’s protections and regulations.

No. 14-01873 (N.D. Ill.)This case alleges that Advocate Health Care Network’s claim that its pension plan is exempt from ERISA’s protections because it is a “church plan” is improper because Advocate Health is not a church, and the pension plan was not established by a

Pension Plan is not a church plan exempt from ERISA’s protections and regulations.

No. 14-02237 (D. Md.)Keller Rohrback serves as Co-Lead Counsel in this lawsuit that alleges Defendants’ claim that the Trinity Health pension plan is exempt from ERISA’s protections because it is a “church plan” is improper because, among other things, Trinity Health

preliminary approval of a settlement providing for equitable relief, plus payment of the total amount of $84 million.

OTHER CURRENT CHURCH PLAN CASES

No. 13-1249 (D. Colo.)

No. 14-4068 (N.D. Ill.)

No. 14-1720 (W.D. Wash.)

No. 16-393 (S.D. Ill.)

No. 16-1079 (D. Md.)

No. 16-467 (S.D. Ill.)

No. 16-478 (W.D. Okla.)

No. 16-2740 (D. N.J.)

No. 16-3282 (C.D. Ill.)

PENSION PLANS: CHURCH PLANS




The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) sets minimum standards for the management Workers and retirees across America depend on their

an employee’s livelihood is also tied to the well-being of their employer—thus, if an employer’s stock collapses, employees can lose their jobs at the same time that their retirement savings is decimated.

Keller Rohrback’s work in this area resulted in numerous pivotal judicial opinions.In re Enron Corp. Sec., Derivative & “ERISA” Litig. In re Syncor ERISA

Litig.presentations at ERISA conferences, as well as amicus briefs. E.g., Brief for Law Professors as Amici Curiae in Support of the Respondents,

REPRESENTATIVE CASESMDL No. 10-1318 (E.D. Pa.).

The wave of 401(k) company stock cases began with

complete and accurate information concerning company stock to the participants, and that they failed to address their

In re Enron Corp. ERISA Litigation, MDL No. 02-1446 (S.D. Tex.)Keller Rohrback served as Co-Lead Counsel in this class action. After groundbreaking motions to dismiss decisions, and

No. 01-3491 (D. N.J.)

$69 million to the plan was approved by Judge Joel Pisano on December 12, 2003.

No. 02-4816 (S.D.N.Y.)

401(k) Salary Savings Plan who invested in WorldCom stock. Settlements providing for injunctive relief and payments of over

401(K) & SAVINGS PLANS: COMPANY STOCK & PUBLIC ESOPS


was approved by Judge Gerard Lynch on November 10, 2004.

In re AIG ERISA Litigation, No. 04-09387 (S.D.N.Y.) and In re AIG ERISA Litigation II, (S.D.N.Y.)

No. 07-10268 (S.D.N.Y.)

No. 07-1874 (W.D. Wash.)

401(K) & SAVINGS PLANS: COMPANY STOCK & PUBLIC ESOPS



An Employee Stock Ownership Plan (“ESOP”) is

ESOPs are intended to invest primarily in the stock of the ESOP participant’s employer. Keller Rohrback is a national leader in ESOP cases, and has substantial experience representing

who approve or permit transactions that favor corporate interests to the detriment of the ESOP despite having a

Rohrback’s attorneys have achieved many notable successes for their ESOP clients, including obtaining

of dollars in settlements.

REPRESENTATIVE CASESJohnson v. Couturier, Keller Rohrback obtained a major victory for participants of the Noll Manufacturing Co. ESOP against Defendants who awarded themselves grossly excessive compensation at the expense of the ESOP. In a seminal case frequently cited in

prohibited an ESOP plan sponsor from paying litigation costs to indemnify the ESOP’s trustees. See Johnson v. Couturier,

Rader v. Bruister, No. 13-1081 (S.D. Miss.)

No. 10-2741 (C.D. Cal.)

April 26, 2012.

401(K) & SAVINGS PLANS: PRIVATE ESOP PLANS




Keller Rohrback served as Lead Counsel for the then-current employees in an ESOP valuation action that alleged the ESOP’s

the ESOP, and an $11 million credit against the principal owed by the ESOP to the company was approved by Chief Judge

Schwartz v. Cook, Keller Rohrback represents a participant in the Buckles-Smith Electric Company ESOP in this lawsuit that alleges that the

No. 12-3234 (N.D. Ga.)Keller Rohrback served as counsel for several ESOP plan participants in this lawsuit that alleged Defendants directed and approved the repurchase of Stiefel Labs., Inc. stock from ESOP participants and the ESOP at a fraction of the actual fair market value of Stiefel stock, allowing Defendants to reap a substantially higher portion of the proceeds in a subsequent

401(K) & SAVINGS PLANS: PRIVATE ESOP PLANS


contribution or 401(k) plans—are vulnerable to being whittled away by fees associated with investment products. There are as many types of fees as investment products available to retirement plans. Many fees are hidden or undisclosed. Some fees are paid directly by participants, while others are levied indirectly as

another. In many cases, these fees are charged for

providers at the expense of hard-working Americans. High fees over time can slash retiree balances by a third, or more. No matter who pays or collects excessive fees

challenged investments that contain many layers of securities and insurance products—and many layers of fees. We have pursued on a class action basis not only claims against multiple entities responsible for the fees charged to participants in a single plan, but also uniform fees charged by service providers to thousands of plans using common investment products.

Keller Rohrback has been selected by federal courts to serve as lead or co-lead counsel in class action cases challenging excessive and self-dealing fees. We have written articles and presented on these topics, and we authored an amicus brief in

See Brief for Law Professors as Amici Curiae in Support of the Petitioners,

REPRESENTATIVE CASESNo. 08-3109 (W.D. Mo.)

plan who invested in retail class mutual funds that charged excessive fees to participants and paid hidden fees to the plan’s trustee and recordkeeper, Merrill Lynch. The complaint alleged that the revenue sharing and the other fees were excessive in light of the size of the plan, and that these fees were not properly disclosed. Keller Rohrback’s attorneys secured the

in a fee case of this kind when they obtained an order from the Eighth Circuit reversing dismissal and articulating the pleading standard for process-based breaches of ERISA,

401(K) & SAVINGS PLANS: EXCESSIVE & CONFLICTED FEES & OVERCHARGES



Santomenno v. Transamerica Life Insurance Company, No. 12-2782 (C.D. Cal.)

extracted impermissible fees from the annuity contracts issued to 401(k) plans created for small- and mid-sized businesses

In re Regions Morgan Keegan ERISA Litigation, No. 08-2192 (W.D. Tenn.)

A settlement providing injunctive relief and a payment of $22.7 million was approved by Judge Samuel H. Mays, Jr. on December 29, 2014.

In re Express Scripts/Anthem ERISA Litigation, No. 16-3399 (S.D.N.Y)

under a ten-year agreement, and the claims arise out of defendants’ practice of overcharging the class for pharmaceutical drugs.

401(K) & SAVINGS PLANS: EXCESSIVE & CONFLICTED FEES & OVERCHARGES



Many times ERISA plans end up in high-risk or other patently imprudent investments due to breaches by the plans’

be generated to invest plan assets in investments that are simply unacceptably high for ERISA plans. Keller Rohrback has

investment strategies.

REPRESENTATIVE CASESIn re State Street Bank and Trust Co. ERISA Litigation, No. 07-08488 (S.D.N.Y.)

manager of the bond funds, had imprudently invested the purportedly conservative funds in high-risk and/or highly leveraged

No. 09-8278 (S.D.N.Y.)

Rohrback obtained a settlement of over $219 million in this case and related actions, including claims brought by the United States Secretary of Labor and the New York Attorney General.

that defendants’ selection of Executive Life Insurance Company to provide annuities to pension plan participants (upon

“plan asset” for purposes of ERISA’s prohibited transaction provisions. On remand, the case settled, resulting in the payment of approximately $7 million to the class.

401(K) & SAVINGS PLANS: IMPRUDENT INVESTMENTS



Keller Rohrback is actively litigating cases arising from so-called guaranteed investment contracts (“GICs”) and Stable

plans.

spread for themselves.

REPRESENTATIVE CASESNo. 14-2330 (D. Colo.)

contribution 401(k) plans who invested their plan assets in a GIC sponsored by Great-West. The complaint alleges that Great-

to “guarantee” a credited rate of return, this guarantee is illusory because Great-West reserves the right to—and has—reset this rate on a periodic basis, passing the risk of investment performance on to plan participants. Meanwhile, by setting this

invested through the GIC.

Austin v. Union Bond & Trust Co., No. 14-706 (D. Or.)

allege that this fund was imprudently invested in short-term investments and other unnecessarily conservative investment options and that, as a result, it was not managed as advertised: as a long-term investment option designed to outperform money-market funds.

401(K) & SAVINGS PLANS: INSURANCE INVESTMENT PRODUCTS



Foreign exchange is a necessary component of all international investment transactions, yet the foreign exchange market is one of the least transparent and least regulated of the international markets. The large banks and other

has encompassed a range of foreign exchange trading abuses faced by both institutional investors and participants and

REPRESENTATIVE CASESNo. 12-11698

(D. Mass.)

Street improperly marked up or marked down currency transactions, and engaged in ERISA prohibited transactions when it failed to disclose fully the details of the foreign currency transactions it was undertaking on behalf of the Plans. In September

ERISA claims.

No. 16-2627 (S.D.N.Y.)

whom JPMorgan Chase sponsored collective investment trusts or provided asset management in connection with foreign

401(K) & SAVINGS PLANS: FOREIGN CURRENCY TRADING



in order to receive interest income on the loan. Securities lending is a common practice for entities with large investment portfolios who are seeking to earn incremental returns to aid in covering their fees. When the loan is made, the borrower is required to provide the lender with cash collateral of equivalent value. Prudent investment of the collateral is required so that it can be returned to the borrower at the conclusion of the loan. As payment for the loan, the parties also negotiate a fee for the value of the loaned securities. Keller Rohrback has represented institutional investors and served as co-lead counsel on behalf of public and private pension funds in litigation alleging that a bank imprudently invested its clients’ cash collateral in risky securities and breached its legal obligations to clients.

REPRESENTATIVE CASESNo. 09-1934 (N.D. Ill.)

Keller Rohrback was class counsel in litigation against Northern Trust alleging securities lending-related ERISA breaches of

401(K) & SAVINGS PLANS: SECURITIES LENDING



In addition to retirement plans, ERISA also governs how employee health care plans are administered. Health care plans must be operated with particular standards that were designed to protect the interests of employees, retirees, and

REPRESENTATIVE CASESNo. 99-1886 (W.D. Pa.)

participants could appeal claim denials and reform of the forms’ denial codes so that they were more understandable to the class members.

No. 11-3487 (S.D.N.Y.)Keller Rohrback served as counsel in this lawsuit that alleged Defendants violated ERISA through use of an “estimating policy”

Hartford’s failure to pay interest on retroactive payments it made to disabled participants after those participants were successful in using the plan’s internal review procedure and obtaining reversals of claim denials. The district court granted

appeals reversed in these latter respects. After remand and further proceedings in both the district and appeals court, the case settled. The settlement provided for future payment of interest on claims where appeals were favorably decided and for some retroactive payments.

WELFARE PLANS




APPELLATE PRACTICE

Appeals require specialized skills and experience, and Keller Rohrback has a seasoned appellate team that includes award-winning brief writers and outstanding oral advocates. Our appellate expertise is particularly important in large cases, including complex class actions. Keller Rohrback has the experience and talent to handle any issue that arises involving interlocutory appeals and will

REPRESENTATIVE CASES

(7th Cir. 2016) and (9th Cir. 2016)Keller Rohrback persuaded the Seventh and Ninth Circuits that pension plans

denominations did not qualify for the “church plan” exemption from ERISA- because the plans were not established by any churches and thus did not satisfy

Hunter v. Berkshire Hathaway Inc., Keller Rohrback represented retirement plan participants against Acme Brick Company and its sole owner, Berkshire Hathaway Inc., to enforce Berkshire Hathaway’s promise, when it acquired Acme, not to cause Acme to reduce retirement

promise and reversed the trial court’s dismissal of claims against Berkshire Hathaway.

Keller Rohrback successfully defended the trial court’s decision and judgment that the Defendants had unlawfully reduced

preempt a New York state law. The Second Circuit agreed with the position advanced by Keller Rohrback and adopted the reasoning and even some of the language of its amicus brief.

Keller Rohrback persuaded the Second Circuit to reverse the district court’s dismissal of our client’s claims for medical coverage.

Keller Rohrback represented a class of Wal-Mart employees who alleged that Wal-Mart’s 401(k) plan charged them excessive fees. Keller Rohrback convinced the Eighth Circuit to reverse the trial court and reinstate the employees’ claims.

ATTORNEYSLynn Lincoln SarkoT. David CopleyMatthew GerendBen GouldRon KilgardCari Campen Laufenberg

Derek LoeserGretchen ObristErin RileyMatthew PreuschKarin Swope



APPELLATE PRACTICE

Johnson v. Couturier, Keller Rohrback obtained a major victory for participants of an ESOP after Defendants awarded themselves grossly excessive

court which prohibited an ESOP plan sponsor from paying litigation costs to indemnify the ESOP’s trustees. The opinion is frequently cited in ESOP litigation by courts across the country.

In re Syncor ERISA Litigation, Keller Rohrback represented a group of workers who alleged that their employer had violated the law by investing their retirement savings in the employer’s stock. Keller Rohrback convinced the Ninth Circuit to reverse the dismissal of the trial court and reinstate the workers’ claims.

Tatum v. RJR Pension Investment Committee, (4th Cir. 2014)

in concluding that the breach did not cause the plan’s losses.


Lynn Lincoln Sarko is a master strategist and litigator who leads Keller Rohrback’s nationally recognized Complex Litigation Group. One of the nation’s top attorneys in complex litigation, Lynn does not just help clients

and tailored, creative problem solving, Lynn and his team accomplish the best outcomes while minimizing costs and maximizing value.

Lynn’s diverse experience enables him to think outside the box to resolve complex cases. He regularly interacts with international business interests, representing sovereign nations and institutional clients seeking to recover

is currently involved in several matters involving complex derivatives and specialty investment products. Lynn is the driving force behind Keller

organization of leading asset managers and service providers engaged in the public investor community. He represents clients with regard to regulatory investigations and issues involving state and federal supervisory agencies and has litigated actions involving several of the nation’s largest accounting and

years and regularly serves as lead counsel in multiparty individual and class

counsel in these and other complex cases because of his reputation as a skilled negotiator. His successes in this area include multimillion dollar

Enron, WorldCom, Global Crossing, Health South, Delphi, Washington Mutual,

retirement plan cases.

Courts and professional organizations have honored Lynn for his work on

cases. After serving as trial counsel in the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill case, which

court as Administrator for all funds recovered. He prosecuted the Microsoft

Litigation, and notable public service lawsuits such as Erickson v. Bartell Drug Co., which established a woman’s right to prescription contraceptive health coverage.

Prior to joining Keller Rohrback, Lynn was an Assistant United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, Criminal Division, an associate at the Washington,

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in Seattle. He has been the managing partner of Keller Rohrback since 1991.

Lynn appears in federal courts from coast to coast, maintaining an active national litigation practice. He regularly counsels and represents consumers,

improper disclosure of proprietary, personal, health, and other protected information.

LYNN LINCOLN SARKOCONTACT INFO1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200Seattle, WA 98101(206) [email protected]

PRACTICE EMPHASIS• Antitrust and Trade

Regulation• Appeals• Class Actions• Constitutional Law•

Contracts• Consumer Protection • Data Breach • Employment Law • Environmental Litigation •

Retirement Security • •

Services• Institutional Investors • Intellectual Property • International Law• Mass Personal Injury • Medical Negligence • Securities • State and Local Government • Whistleblower



EDUCATIONUniversity of Wisconsin

B.B.A., 1977

University of Wisconsin

M.B.A., 1978,

University of Wisconsin

J.D., 1981, Order of the Coif Wisconsin Law Review; Salmon Dalberg Award (outstanding graduate)

BAR & COURT ADMISSIONS1981, Wisconsin

1983, District of Columbia

1986, Washington

HONORS & AWARDS

Avvo Top Tax Lawyer, Washington CEO Magazine, 2008

Salmon Dalberg Award, 1981

PROFESSIONAL & CIVIC INVOLVEMENTAmerican Bar Association, Member

Bar Association of The District of Columbia, Member

Member

King County Bar Association, Member

State Bar of Wisconsin, Member

Trial Lawyers for Public Justice, Member

Washington State Bar Association, Member

Washington State Trial Lawyers Association, Member

American Association for Justice, Member

Partner

The Association of Trial Lawyers of America, Member

American Academy of Trial Counsel,

Editorial Board, Washington State Securities Law Deskbook (scheduled for publication in 2012)

SELECTED PUBLICATIONSThomson/West Webinar, “Stock Drop and Roll: Key Supreme Court Rulings and New Standards in ERISA ‘Stock Drop’ Cases,” July 24, 2014

14th Annual Pension Law, Governance and Solvency Conference, 2013

Pension Law, Governance and Solvency, 2013

ERISA Litigation, 2013

ERISA Litigation, 2012



Laurie Ashton is Of Counsel to Keller Rohrback. Prior to becoming Of

her career, as an Adjunct Professor, she taught semester courses in Lawyering Theory and Practice and Advanced Business Reorganizations. She also served as a law clerk for the Honorable Charles G. Case, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, for the District of Arizona for two years.

In complex litigation, Laurie was the lead attorney for Keller Rohrback in a series of successful groundwater contamination suits brought in 1996 against multiple international defendants concerning chemical releases spanning over 60 years. She was also the lead attorney for Keller Rohrback in an ERISA class action suit on behalf of over 21,000 employees who lost a

maintained the investment of those assets in their own declining company stock—a case that was, at its time, amongst the largest of its kind in the nation.

reorganization plan over the objection of the international life insurance company’s feasibility expert, based on Laurie’s cross examination.

Laurie has been active in the State Bar of Arizona where she served on the Ethics Committee for six years. She was also the coauthor of a textbook on limited liability companies and partnerships, published by West, and is AV rated by Martindale.

An important part of Laurie’s international work involves the domestic and international legal implications of treaty obligations and breaches. She is lead counsel for The Republic of the Marshall Islands in its federal court treaty breach suit against the United States, and a member of the international legal team representing the Marshall Islands in three cases pending at the International Court of Justice in The Hague, against the United Kingdom,

Minister of the Marshall Islands, for the 2016 Nobel Peace Prize.

a member of the Human Rights Watch Committee in Santa Barbara, and as a Director of the Global Justice Center in New York, which advances human rights pursuit to various international laws, including the Geneva and Genocide Conventions, as well as customary international law.

LAURIE ASHTON

CONTACT INFO3101 North Central Avenue, Suite 1400

(602) 248-0088

[email protected]

PRACTICE EMPHASIS• Business Reorganizations

• Litigation

• Constitutional Law

• Retirement Security

•

• International Law

EDUCATIONUniversity of California, San Diego

B.A., 1987, Economics

Arizona State University College of Law

Member, ,

Editor, ,

Legal Research and Writing, 1989-1990.



BAR & COURT ADMISSIONS1990, Arizona

1999, Colorado

2007, Washington, D.C.

2013, Eastern District of Michigan

Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals

U.S. Supreme Court

PROFESSIONAL & CIVIC INVOLVEMENTState Bar of Arizona, Member

Colorado Bar Association, Member

Washington, D.C. Bar Association, Member

Adjunct Professor of Law, Advanced Chapter 11, Arizona State University, 1996

Adjunct Professor of Law, Lawyering Theory & Practice, Arizona State University, 1997

Committee on the Rules of Professional Conduct (“Ethics Committee”), State Bar of Arizona, Member, 1997-2003

Court Appointed Special Advocate, King County, 2007-2009

Trustee

Global Justice Center, New York, Director

Human Rights Watch Committee, Santa Barbara, Member

PUBLICATIONS & PRESENTATIONSAuthor, Case Note, Arizona Mortgage and Deed of Trust

,

Co-Author, and Partnerships (1996-2004).

Guest Lecturer, Harvard Law School, 1997, 1999, 2001-2002.

Guest Lecturer, Stanford Law School, 2003.

Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear

Speaker, Humanity House, The Hague, March 2016.

Speaker, Bertha Von-Suttner Master Class, The Peace Palace, The Hague, the Sky.”



A member of Keller Rohrback’s nationally recognized Complex Litigation Group, Alison is a thorough researcher who stays on top of the latest legal developments in class action litigation. During law school, Alison represented clients in deportation proceedings through the Immigration Law Clinic and as an intern with the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, where she continues to volunteer. She

the Seattle Immigration Court. Prior to law school, Alison worked and studied in China, Cuba, England, Greece, and Guatemala.

When she is not solving problems for her clients, Alison enjoys hiking, snowboarding, and spending time with her family.

BAR & COURT ADMISSIONS2012, Washington

PROFESSIONAL & CIVIC INVOLVEMENTWashington State Bar Association, Member


Mother Attorneys Mentoring Association of Seattle (MAMAS), Member

Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, Pro Bono Attorney

ALISON GAFFNEY

CONTACT INFO

1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200

Seattle, WA 98101

(206) 623-1900

PRACTICE EMPHASIS

• Class Actions


•

EDUCATION

Swarthmore College

B.A., 2002, Linguistics and

University of California, San Diego

M.A., 2007, Latin American Studies (International Migration)

University of Washington School of Law

J.D., 2012



Laura R. Gerber is a strong advocate for her clients. years in a whistleblower protection organization, to her current practice litigating against some of America’s largest corporations, Laura has built her career as an advocate on behalf of both employees and customers of large corporations. Laura represents her clients with skill, tact and diplomacy. As a result, Laura’s clients trust her to listen carefully, keep them informed, provide excellent legal advice, and to diligently pursue their interests in litigation against powerful defendants.

Group where she has developed a diverse practice with a focus on holding banks and other institutions accountable to their customers and employees. She has experience litigating mutual fund excessive fee cases, Ponzi scheme

Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) cases, and consumer protection class actions. Laura’s strategic persistence in complex cases has led to impressive results with certain of her clients receiving substantial individual recoveries.

While in law school, Laura concurrently received a Master’s degree in Public Administration and was a member of the Moot Court Honor Board.


2006, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington

2006, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington

2010, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois

2013, U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado

2016, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois

2016, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri

2016, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio

2016, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma

2006, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Court

2014, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Court

HONORS & AWARDSSelected to Rising Stars list in 2009, 2013.

LAURA R. GERBER

CONTACT INFO1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200

Seattle, WA 98101

(206) 623-1900

[email protected]

PRACTICE EMPHASIS

• Consumer Protection


•

•

• Institutional Investors

• Whistleblower

EDUCATION

Goshen College

B.A., 1994, History, Economics


J.D., 2003

University of Washington

M.P.A., 2003



PROFESSIONAL & CIVIC INVOLVEMENTWashington Appleseed, Board of Directors,



American Bar Association, Member

Mother Attorney Mentoring Association (MAMAS), Member

PUBLICATIONS & PRESENTATIONSSpeaker, American Conference Institute’s 8th National

Church Plan Litigation).

L. Gerber and R. Giovarelli, Land Reform and Land Markets in Eastern Europe

David Weissbrodt, Penny Parker, Laura Gerber, Muria Kruger, Joe W. (Chip) Pitts III,

Protection of Human Rights, 21 NETH Q. HUM. RTS. 291 (2003)



Litigation Group, representing employees and other investors in litigation to enforce securities laws and the Employee Income Retirement Security Act

fraud, and other misconduct that threatens employees’ retirement security.

Matt became interested in the laws protecting retirement and pension

Courts of Appeals regarding the proper interpretation and implementation of ERISA. During law school, Matt also worked as an intern with the Community Development Project at the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.

ethic that has guided his work representing individuals and investors against those engaged in divisive and fraudulent practices.



2012, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

2013, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan

2014, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

2014, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

PROFESSIONAL & CIVIC INVOLVEMENTWashington State Bar Association, Member

HONORS & AWARDSSelected to Rising Stars list in Super Lawyers – Washington,

PUBLICATIONS & PRESENTATIONSContributing Author,

Deborah M. Austin and Matthew M. Gerend,

(2009).

MATTHEW GEREND


Seattle, WA 98101

(206) 623-1900

[email protected]

PRACTICE EMPHASIS• Class Action


•

• Securities

EDUCATIONUniversity of Wisconsin

Political Science, Phi Beta Kappa

Georgetown University Law Center

J.D., Articles Editor,



Chris is a member of Keller Rohrback’s Complex Litigation and Bankruptcy Groups, representing debtors, creditors, Court-appointed committees, and asset purchasers in Chapter 11 reorganization proceedings and out-of-court workouts. Chris also has wide-ranging experience in complex commercial litigation from corporate restructuring to matters of breach of

patent infringement, and environmental insurance coverage.

Together with colleagues he has represented clients as diverse as the committee of victims of clergy sexual abuse in the Chapter 11 reorganization of a Catholic diocese, a developer restructuring a portfolio of real property interests nationwide, and a national company acquiring a competitor’s assets in a bankruptcy-court-approved sale in California.

A graduate of the great books liberal arts program at St. Johns’ College in Santa

magna cum laude in 1990. While his practice is centered in the Southwest, Chris represents clients in federal courts coast to coast.

BAR & COURT ADMISSIONSArizona, 1990

United States District Court for the District of Arizona, 1990

United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Ninth Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

PROFESSIONAL & CIVIC INVOLVEMENTAmerican Bankruptcy Institute, Member

Arizona State Bar Association, Member

Maricopa County Bar Association, Member

PUBLICATIONS & PRESENTATIONS

the Roman Catholic Diocese of Tucson, prepared for the National Conference

“Decoding the Code,” AzBusiness Magazine

Speaker, Maricopa County Bar Association presentation,Changing the Way Creditors are Treated, 2006.

CHRISTOPHER GRAVER

CONTACT INFO3101 North Central Avenue

Suite 1400

602.248.0088

[email protected]

PRACTICE EMPHASIS• Business Litigation

• Bankruptcy and Creditors’ Rights

EDUCATIONSt. John’s College

B.A., 1976

University of New Mexico

J.D., 1990 Order of the Coif



Ron Kilgard is a seasoned lawyer who understands that yesterday’s rule changes are just as important as the landmark cases decided decades ago. substantive law changes slowly (at least most of the time!). However, the relevant rules and judges’ individual practices change almost daily, and they vary enormously from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and judge to judge. Balancing all of this is, for Ron, one of the many challenges and pleasures of law practice.

involving both plans regulated by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) and non-ERISA plans such as public plans and so-called “church plans.” Ron helped Keller Rohrback pioneer company stock ERISA litigation in the late 1990s and early 2000s. More recently, Ron was part of the team

litigation. In 2012, Ron was selected for inclusion in Best Lawyers in America (19th ed.) for ERISA practice. Ron is currently class counsel in a case on behalf of all sitting state court, general jurisdiction, judges in Arizona, Hall v. Elected

Ron is a Phoenix native. He began law practice with Martori, Meyer, Hendricks

When not practicing law, he enjoys spending time with his wife and children and reading on the porch with his Golden Retriever.

BAR & COURT ADMISSIONS1979, Arizona

2009, District of Columbia

2011, New York

HONORS & AWARDSBest Lawyers in America (19th ed.) – ERISA practice.

PROFESSIONAL & CIVIC INVOLVEMENTState Bar of Arizona, Member

District of Columbia Bar, Member

New York State Bar Association, Member

RON KILGARD

CONTACT INFO3101 North Central Avenue, Suite 1400

(602) 248-0088

[email protected]

PRACTICE EMPHASIS• Appeals

• Class Action

• Constitutional Law


•

• Services

EDUCATIONHarvard College B.A., 1973, History

Harvard Divinity School M.T.S.,

Arizona State University College of Law J.D., 1979, Editor-in Chief, , Armstrong Award (outstanding graduate)



PUBLICATIONS & PRESENTATIONSSpeaker, ABA Seminar, After Enron, 2006

Speaker, Chicago Bar Association, Company Stock Litigation, 2006

Speaker, West LegalWorks ERISA Litigation Conference, 2007

Speaker, National Center for Employee Ownership, , 2012 and

2013

Speaker, American Conference Institute,



Gretchen Obrist provides her clients with a clear voice in complex cases. Gretchen is a member of Keller Rohrback’s nationally recognized Complex Litigation group whose work as a dedicated advocate dates back nearly two

Gretchen works closely with clients to help them understand the processes of litigation and negotiation. Her hands-on approach to legal strategy helps her identify and achieve her clients’ goals and right the wrongs they have experienced.

experience with a broad range of federal cases at all stages. Her nationwide practice focuses on Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”)

savings industry and provide recourse to retirement plan participants and

ERISA experience includes a successful appeal to the Eighth Circuit in Braden

conversions by Washington Mutual and JPMorgan, and representation of the employees who lost nearly all of their ESOP savings with the collapse of Bear Stearns.

fraud claims, civil rights issues, and qui tam relator representation. She has played a key role in class action and multi-district cases arising out of the collapse of the mortgage securities industry and the residential mortgage

Prior to joining Keller Rohrback, Gretchen served as a law clerk to the Honorable John C. Coughenour, U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Washington. Before obtaining her law degree, she worked at a public

and the Nebraska Appleseed Center for Law in the Public Interest—where she

as an innovator in the organization’s earliest days.

whose 4th edition is forthcoming. She frequently speaks at conferences and CLEs, is quoted in pension-related publications, and has published a number of articles related to her practice areas.

GRETCHEN OBRIST


Seattle, WA 98101

(206) 623-1900

[email protected]


• Class Actions



•

• Services

• Whistleblower

EDUCATIONUniversity of Nebraska - Lincoln

B.S. with distinction, 1999, Women’s Studies, UNL Honors Program

University of Nebraska - Lincoln, College of Law

J.D., with high distinction,Order of the Coif, Editor-in-Chief, Nebraska Law Review,



BAR & COURT ADMISSIONS


2008, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan

2008, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit


2011, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington

2011, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit


PROFESSIONAL & CIVIC INVOLVEMENTThe William L. Dwyer American Inn of Court, Member

American Constitution Society, Puget Sound Lawyer Chapter, Member



American Bar Association, Member, Litigation/Labor and Employment Sections

HONORS & AWARDSRecipient of the 2004 Robert G. Simmons Law Practice

National Association of Women Lawyers Outstanding Law

Selected to Rising Stars list in , 2010

PUBLICATIONS & PRESENTATIONSQuoted in Jacklyn Wille, “Ninth Circuit Adopts Pro-Worker

BNA (Apr. 22, 2016) (www.bna.com).

Speaker, ABA Section of Labor and Employment Law,

Vegas, NV, 2016 (Will Class Actions Live After This Supreme Court Term?).

Quoted in Andrea L. Ben-Yosef, “Class Action Suits on Plan

Lynn L. Sarko, Erin M. Riley, and Gretchen S. Obrist, Brief for Law Professors as Amici Curiae in Support of the Petitioners, Tibble, et al. v. Edison International, et al., No.

Erin M. Riley and Gretchen S. Obrist, Contributors,

(BNA Sept. 9, 2014) (www.bna.com).

8/11/2014) (BNA Aug. 11, 2014) (www.bna.com).

24th Annual National Institute on ERISA Litigation, Chicago,

Ethical Considerations in ERISA Litigation).

Litigation?).

Quoted in Jacklyn Wille, “High Court to Address Statute of

(www.bna.com).

Quoted in Jacklyn Wille, “High Court Seeks Government

2014) (www.bna.com).



PUBLICATIONS & PRESENTATIONS CONT.

– 23rd Annual National Institute on ERISA Litigation,

Issues).


Charleston, SC, 2013 (ERISA 408(b)(2) and 404(a)

Washington State, A Resource by Washington Appleseed (2013).

Gretchen S. Obrist, “‘Class of Plans’ Actions Could Be Next Wave of ERISA Litigation, Gretchen Obrist Says,” ERISA

2013) (www.bna.com).

Developments in 2012 and What to Expect in 2013,”

(Mar. 26, 2013) (www.bna.com).

New Disclosure Rules, and What’s Next in Pending Cases,”

(www.bna.com).


the Impact of the Regulations).

Gretchen S. Obrist, Note, The Nebraska Supreme Court

v. State: “No Duty” as a Non-Response to Violence Against

(2004).



Erin Riley knows that strong relationships are key in complex cases. Erin was a summer associate at Keller Rohrback in 1999, and joined Keller Rohrback’s complex litigation group in 2000.

Merrill Lynch and WorldCom. Erin has worked on ERISA-related articles and amicus briefs, and has spoken at ERISA-related conferences. She is the

She earned her J.D. from the University of Wisconsin, where she served as an editor of the Wisconsin Law Review. She received her undergraduate degree from Gonzaga University.

When not at work, Erin enjoys spending time with her family and friends.

BAR & COURT ADMISSIONS2000, Wisconsin

2000, Washington

PROFESSIONAL & CIVIC INVOLVEMENTWisconsin State Bar Association, Member



HONORS & AWARDSSelected to Rising Stars list in Super Lawyers – Washington, 2009

PUBLICATIONS & PRESENTATIONS

, Bloomberg BNA (Apr. 22, 2016) (www.bna.com).

“Amgen Inc. v. Harris: What is the Status of ERISA Company Stock Cases Post-Amgen

Speaker, ACI ERISA Litigation, Chicago, IL, 2016 (Supreme Court Roundup).

ERIN RILEY


Seattle, WA 98101

(206) 623-1900

[email protected]


• Class Actions


•

• Services

• Securities

EDUCATIONGonzaga University

B.A., History

University of Wisconsin Law School

J.D., , 2000, Wisconsin Law Review



PUBLICATIONS & PRESENTATIONS CONT.Panelist, ABA Section of Labor and Employment Law,

Vegas, NV, 2016 (mock mediation).

Quoted in Andrea L. Ben-Yosef, “Class Action Suits on Plan , Bloomberg

Br. of Amicus Curiae of Pension Rights Center in Supp. Of Petition, Pundt v. Verizon Communications2016).

Br. of Amicus Curiae AARP and National Employment Lawyers Association in Supp. of Pls.-Appellees, BP, P.L.C.

Br. of The Pension Rights Center as Amicus Curiae in Supp. of Resp’t, Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, No. 13-1339 (U.S. Sept. 4,

Lynn L. Sarko, Erin M. Riley, and Gretchen S. Obrist, Brief for Law Professors as Amici Curiae in Support of the Petitioners, ., No.

Quoted in Jacklyn Wille, “High Court to Address Statute of

, Bloomberg BNA (Oct. 3, 2014) (www.bna.com).

Litigation?).

Erin M. Riley and Gretchen S. Obrist, Contributors,

(http://www.bna.com)

8/11/2014) (http://www.bna.com).

Lynn L. Sarko and Erin M. Riley, Brief for Law Professors as Amici Curiae in Support of the Respondents,

Citigroup Ruling”, ERISA Litigation Tracker: Litigator

Sarah H. Kimberly, Erin M. Riley, “Court Declines to

Committee Newsletter (Spring, 2011).

Derek W. Loeser, Erin M. Riley and Benjamin Gould, “2010 ERISA Employer Stock Cases: The Good, the Bad, and the

Derek W. Loeser and Erin M. Riley, “The Case Against the

(Sept. 10, 2010).



Havila Unrein gives her clients a voice in the legal system. Havila practices in Keller Rohrback’s nationally recognized Complex Litigation Group, where she is dedicated to helping clients who have been harmed by others engaged in fraud, cutting corners, and abuses of power.

investments that resulted in a $219 million settlement with consolidated

the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) by healthcare institutions attempting to claim exempt “church plan” status under ERISA.

During law school, Havila provided tax and business advice to low-income entrepreneurs and high-tech start-ups as a student in the Entrepreneurial Law Clinic. She also served as an extern to the Honorable Stephanie Joannides of the Anchorage Superior Court. Prior to law school, Havila worked and studied abroad in Russia, Azerbaijan, and the Czech Republic.



2012, Montana


2012, U.S. District Court for the District of Montana

2013, California

2013, U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado

2013, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California

2013, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California

2013, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

2013, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California


PROFESSIONAL & CIVIC INVOLVEMENTCalifornia State Bar Association, Member

Santa Barbara County Bar Association, Member



Montana State Bar Association, Member

HAVILA UNREIN

CONTACT INFO407 Main St. SW, Ste. 3

406.281.7231

[email protected]

PRACTICE EMPHASIS• Class Actions



• Environmental Contamination

•

• Services

• Mass Personal Injury

• Securities

• Whistleblower

EDUCATIONDartmouth College

B.A., 2003, Russian Area Studies


J.D./LL.M. (Tax), with honors, 2008



EXHIBIT C


MARK D. DE BOFSKY Attorney at Law DeBofsky, Sherman & Casciari, P.C. 200 W. Madison St., Suite 2670 Chicago, Illinois 60606 Toll free - 855-LTDLAW1 (855-583-5291) (312) 561-4040 Direct – 312-235-4880 Efax - (312) 929-0309 EMPLOYMENT

July 2013 – present – DeBofsky, Sherman & Casciari, P.C. (formerly DeBofsky & Associates, P.C.). Civil and Appellate Litigation; Employee Benefits Litigation (ERISA), Disability Insurance and Other Insurance Claims and Coverage April 2002 – June 2013 – Daley, DeBofsky & Bryant, P.C.. Civil and Appellate Litigation --Concentration in Employment and Employee Benefits Litigation, Disability Insurance and Other Insurance Claims and Coverage, Social Security Law and Practice 1984-2002 -- DeBofsky & DeBofsky. Civil and Appellate Litigation -- Concentration in Employment and Employee Benefits Litigation, Insurance Claims and Coverage, Social Security Law and Practice 1980-1984 -- Stack & Filpi, 140 S. Dearborn, Chicago, Illinois 60603. Associate Attorney. Concentration in Civil Litigation

COURT ADMISSIONS

United States Supreme Court (1984); Supreme Court of Illinois (1980); Supreme Court of Hawaii (2005); United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (2014); United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (1980); United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (2006); United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (2006); United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (2009); United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (1983); United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and Trial Bar; United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois; United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois; United States District Court for the District of Arizona; United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin; United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana; United States District Court for the District of Hawaii; United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan; United States District Court for the District of


Mark D. DeBofsky - Page 2 of 45

Nebraska; United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin; United States Claims Court; United States Court of International Trade; United States Tax Court; Certified Arbitrator -- Circuit Court of Cook County

EDUCATION

University of Illinois College of Law, Champaign, Illinois, Juris Doctor - 1980 University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, Bachelor of Arts with High Distinction and Honors in History - 1977

ADDITIONAL TRAINING/CERTIFICATIONS

Arbitrator-American Arbitration Association – Fundamentals in Arbitration – September 2010 Mediator-United States Arbitration and Mediation, Inc.—Basic Mediator Training, November 1994; Refresher Training—March 1997

PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

American Bar Association, Employee Benefits Committee (Committee Co-Chair-2007-2010); Association of Trial Lawyers of America; Illinois State Bar Association; National Organization of Social Security Claimants' Representatives; Chicago Bar Association (1986-1987, 1995-1996 -- Chairman, Lawyer Referral Service Committee; 1990-1991 -- Chairman, Social Security Law Committee; 1994-1995 -- Chairman, Insurance Law Committee); Federal Bar Association (Director 2007-present); American Constitution Society for Law and Policy; Appellate Lawyers Association (Director - 1992-1994); Illinois Trial Lawyers Association (Insurance Committee); Seventh Circuit Bar Association; Hawaii State Bar Association; Scribes-American Society of Writers on Legal Subjects

TEACHING

The John Marshall Law School, Center for Employee Benefits and Taxation (LL.M. Program); Adjunct Professor: “Employee Benefits Litigation,” 2000-present “The Shifting Boundaries of ERISA Preemption,” Chicago-Kent College of Law (course on Employment Relationships taught by Professor Mary Rose Strubbe), Chicago, Illinois, April 9, 2014 Small Firm Practice – How to Market a Small Firm, University of Illinois College of Law, March 28, 2013 (with Richard Hanus); March 12, 2014 (with Richard Hanus, Bradley Nahrstadt, and Michael Rathsack)



“ERISA Caselaw Update,” John Marshall Law School, Fundamentals of Retirement Plan Issues (taught by Professor Kathryn Kennedy), Chicago, Illinois, November 22, 2010 “Supreme Court and Appellate Court Update,” John Marshall Law School, Fundamentals of Retirement Plan Issues (taught by Professor Kathryn Kennedy), Chicago, Illinois, November 23, 2009

“ERISA Preemption,” Chicago-Kent College of Law (course on

Employment Relationships taught by Professor Laurie Leader), Chicago, Illinois, March 22, 2004.

“ERISA Fiduciary Liability,” University of Michigan (course on ERISA

law taught by Professor Dana Muir), Ann Arbor, Michigan, November 19, 2002

“An Introduction to ERISA Law and Practice,” Loyola University School

of Law, Health Care Institute, Chicago, Illinois, February 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001

VOLUNTEER ACTIVITIES

University of Michigan College of Literature Science and the Arts – Honors Advisory Council Center for Disability and Elder Law (volunteer since inception) Chicago Multiple Sclerosis Society Chapter Editor and Associate Senior Editor Employee Benefits Law (BNA) Equip for Equality – 20th Anniversary Gala Planning Committee (2005); Gala Planning Committee (2006); Gala Planning Committee Co-Chair (2007); Gala Planning Committee (2008) Illinois Institute for Continuing Legal Education – Labor and Employment Law Advisory/Planning Committee

AWARDS AND RECOGNITION

2013 Top Rated Midwest Lawyer, American Lawyer Media and Martindale-Hubbell 2013 Top Rated Lawyer in Insurance Law, American Lawyer Media and Martindale-Hubbell



The National Trial Lawyers: Top 100 Trial Lawyers – 2012 to present American Academy of Trial Attorneys – Premier 100 Finance Monthly – Law Awards 2011 - ERISA Firm of the Year, USA Recognition as a Top 100 lawyer in the State of Illinois by Illinois Super Lawyers - 2009 to present

Recognition as an Illinois Super Lawyer – Employee Benefits/ERISA (2005-present) Recognition as a “Leading Lawyer” by Leading Lawyers Network (Illinois) – Top Ten Plaintiff’s Employment Lawyer and Top Ten Social Security Disability Lawyer – 2012 to present

Finalist – LEXIS/NEXIS Insurance Law Center Person of the Year (2008) – Policyholder Attorney of the Year Martindale-Hubbell “AV” rating (Highest) Fellow of the American College of Employee Benefits Counsel – Inducted 2005 Life Fellow of the American Bar Foundation Recipient of Pro Bono Leader Award – Equip for Equality Center for Disability and Elder Law – Volunteer Recognition PUBLICATIONS

“Good intentions lead to less than positive outcome for plaintiff,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, January 11, 2017

“New ERISA disability rules look to level playing field for all,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, January 4, 2017

“Inconclusive medical tests should not undermine benefits claim, court rules,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, December 14, 2016

“Appeals court takes stand on sitting, opts for Labor Department ruling,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, December 7, 2016

“Judge delivers sobering message to wine rep’s disability insurer,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, October 19, 2016



“Doctors’ sizable income from insurer raises big question of neutrality,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, September 21, 2016

“Discretion and pre-emption: Unraveling ERISA, state insurance law,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, September 14, 2016

“Proving intoxication caused injury more difficult than simple tests,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, August 22, 2016

“Insurer lambasted for ‘misleading’ court and claimant in disability case,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, July 13, 2016

“Disability insurer taken to task for delayed action on disability claim,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, June 21, 2016

“One disability claim case brings several common themes together,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, May 26, 2016

“Health insurer’s three-word denial brings cold shoulder from 2nd Circuit,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, April 27, 2016 “Man finds his claim narrow enough to avoid ERISA pre-emption provisions,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, April 18, 2016 “Ruling sheds light on reimbursement claims,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, March 29, 2016 “Ruling pushes needs of the individual,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, March 22, 2016 “Disability insurer taken to task over vocational assessment,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, February 25, 2016 “California ERISA case makes attorney’s success (and fees) one in the same,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, February 18, 2016 “ERISA does not stand for equitable relief in ‘swollen assets,’” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, January 28, 2016 “Court casts questioning eye on whether doctors’ review was fair, independent, Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, January 21, 2016



“Pension obligations vs. religious exemptions: Does this make sense? Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, December 23, 2015 “Role pain plays in disability spotlighted,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, December 2, 2015

“Discretionary clauses and choice of law in ERISA cases,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, November 16, 2015 “Court looks at calculating credit and taxes in disability benefits case,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, October 19, 2015 “ERISA preemption and state bans on discretionary clauses,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, September 17, 2015 “In 11th Circuit case, disabled worker not disabled enough,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, August 3, 2015 “Discretionary Clauses in ERISA Health and Disability Plans – Are They Still Viable?” (Bloomberg BNA Benefits Practice Resource Center)(initially authored by Jo-El Meyer and updated by Mark DeBofsky), July 1, 2015 “Objective medical information for claims,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, June 23, 2015 “Court takes weekends into account in extending ERISA deadlines,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues June 11, 2015

“Crime, punishment, and paying restitution to victims,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, May 20, 2015

“What an occupation assessment entails,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, April 30, 2015

“Insurers should not conflate risk factors with pre-existing conditions,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, April 15, 2015

“In ERISA, removal of deterrence incentivizes negative behavior,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, March 23, 2015

“Nature of pain doesn’t diminish it as evidence,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, March 4, 2015

“In an insurance policy, don’t ignore a term — each and every one matters,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, February 5, 2015



“Standards of review vary for an ERISA civil action,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, January 14, 2015 "A Critical Appraisal of the Current State of ERISA Civil Procedure -- An Examination of How Courts Treat 'Civil Actions' Brought under the Retirement Income Security Act," 18 Chicago-Kent Employee Rights & Employment Policy Journal 203 (2014) “4th Circuit considers ERISA’s full and fair review requirement,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, December 31, 2014

“Employment releases and disability,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, November 25, 2014

“Federal panel determines loss of license does not equal ‘disabled,’” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, October 27, 2014

“2nd Circuit rules ERISA remand orders non-final, non-appealable,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, October 8, 2014 “Appearance of reasonableness is not enough,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, September 24, 2014

“When it comes to ‘or,’ context matters, Chicago Daily Law bulletin, Workplace Issues, August 27, 2014

“Should veterans’ benefit payments reduce private long-term disability?” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, August 4, 2014

“Churches, Pensions, and ERISA,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, July 7, 2014 “Life insurance and beneficiary intentions,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, June 3, 2014 “Can an expired limitations period be revived?” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, May 12, 2014 “Federal court revives disability claim for schizoaffective disorder,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, April 16, 2014 “Bad faith’ not required in awarding fees,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, April 3, 2014



“Disability benefits cannot be terminated without an explanation,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, March 7, 2014

“Does being able to work part time cut the right to disability benefits?” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, February 12, 2014

“High court decision provides some guidance on ERISA limitations periods,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, January 29, 2014

"Court rules employee too disabled to work, entitled to benefits," Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, January 8, 2014 “A lesson in disgorgement,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, December 30, 2013 “Seventh Circuit,” in B. Magratten, ed., ERISA Survey of Federal Circuits - 2014 Edition (ABA)

“Should claimants be allowed to depose ERISA plan administrators?” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, December 16, 2013 “Two points of view on offset for veteran and disability benefits,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, December 2, 2013 "Court report looks at issue of filing suits under pseudonyms," Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, November 13, 2013 “Remands as final judgments? Court dismisses ERISA case,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, November 4, 2013 “Court finds for insured in absence of examination,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, October 17, 2013

“Is there a duty to investigate,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, October 3, 2013 "Federal court rejects remand request, " Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, September 12, 2013 "Federal court explains why ERISA governs insurance benefit disputes," Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, September 4, 2013



“Clearing up questions left by DOMA ruling,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, August 26, 2013

“7th Circuit oks suits challenging benefit denials,” Chicago Daily Law

Bulletin, Workplace Issues, August 15, 2013

“Court gives insurer another bite at the apple,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, August 2, 2013 “MetLife's 'cookie-cutter' diagnosis slammed,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, July 15, 2013 “Equity provides a way to right a wrong,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, June 27, 2013 “Court rejects claim that vitamin supplements are a medical treatment,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, June 24, 2013 “Florida case offers lesson on ERISA, good-faith duties and fair dealing,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, May 17, 2013 “High court looks at use of 'common-fund doctrine' for personal-injury settlements,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, May 3, 2013 “Federal court rules that showing up for work is a key to doing the job,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, April 18, 2013 “Disability pension blocked for working man, Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, April 17, 2013 “7th Circuit addresses lump-sum pension distribution question,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, April 10, 2013 “Federal appellate court reinstates claim in ERISA dispute,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, April 3, 2013

“Enforceability of forum selection clause reviewed,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, March 20, 2013 “Choice of review standard often dictates outcome,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, March 6, 2013

“Federal court views risk of relapse upon return to work as a disability,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, February 20, 2013



“Federal court adds to list of rulings on mistaken overpayment of benefits,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, February 6, 2013 “Federal appellate panel addresses insured's disability insurance policy,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, January 23, 2013

“Federal court says language serves as the key in employment cases,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, January 9, 2013

Employee Benefits Law (3d ed. 2012)(Bloomberg BNA) – Board of Senior

Editors

“Insurance ruling strays from precedent in drunken driving case,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, December 12, 2012

“Courts examine 24-month mental illness limitation in disability claims,”

Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, November 28, 2012 “Court strays from rules of procedure,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin,

Workplace Issues, November 14, 2012 “Court affirms that plaintiff faces medical condition, not addiction” Chicago

Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, October 24, 2012 “Court says surveillance an abuse of discretion in disability benefits case,”

Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, October 3, 2012 “What is ERISA?” Chicago Medicine (September 2012) “U.S. Supreme Court will consider issues over employee benefit plans,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, September 5, 2012 “Social Security issues fibromyalgia policy,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, August 22, 2012

“Court addresses employee benefits law with regard to misrepresentations,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, August 8, 2012

“A Brief Guide to Disability Insurance,” Chicago Medicine (July 2012)

“9th Circuit Ruling Shows Importance of ERISA Standard of Review,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, July 25, 2012



“Why the Supreme Court's Definition of "Civil Action" Should Lead to an Overhaul of ERISA Civil Procedure,” American Bar Association, Employee Benefits Committee Newsletter (Summer 2012)

“Appeals panel considers insurer’s rights to recover an overpayment,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, July 11, 2012

“Recent court rulings show difficulty in determining fee awards,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, June 20, 2012

“Ruling looks at professionals paying for two types of disability coverage,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, June 6, 2012

“Courts see more accidental death claims,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, May 23, 2012

“Supreme Court reviews ERISA litigation, opens door to overhaul, Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, May 9, 2012

“Discovery proves useful in ERISA cases,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, April 25, 2012

“Case shows difficulty in assessing impact pain or fatigue has on job,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, April 11, 2012 “Court says Liberty made decision apparently devoid of reasoning,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, March 28, 2012

“Several circuits remain divided over remand orders in ERISA cases,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, March 14, 2012

“Circuit courts split over meaning of ERISA’s de novo standard,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, February 28, 2012

“Surprising ruling finds Unum’s interpretation capricious,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, February 15, 2012

“9th Circuit weighs statutory requirement failure,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, February 1, 2012

“Deferential review process needs fair standards,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, January 18, 2012



“Court reconsiders remanded benefit case,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, January 4, 2012

“Approach clarifies benefit claim determinations,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, December 21, 2011

“Seventh Circuit,” in B. Magratten, ed., ERISA Survey of Federal Circuits (2012 Edition)(with Mark E. Schmidtke and Michael Brown)

“Court looks at critical issues involving syndrome,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, December 7, 2011

“McCutchen may influence other court decisions,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, November 25, 2011

“Return to work can create benefits controversy,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, November 2, 2011

“Does insurer get offset from VA disability benefits?” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, October 19, 2011

“Ruling addresses policy limitations,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, October 6, 2011

“A crucial distinction exists in the types of plans,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, September 21, 2011

“Determining when a cause of action accrues,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, September 7, 2011

“Court takes controversial position in Pettaway,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, August 24, 2011

“How do courts weigh conflicts of interest?” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, August 10, 2011 “Contingency fee representation uncertain,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, July 26, 2011

“Courts consider who may be sued as the defendant,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, July 13, 2011

“Court standard of review can be determinative,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, June 22, 2011



“Converting to cash balance plans can be tricky,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, June 6, 2011

“A lesson: Don't overlook other sources of evidence,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, May 16, 2011 “The challenges in calculating disability benefits,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, May 2, 2011 “Claims within framework of federal civil procedure,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, April 18, 2011 “5 factors give courts help in reviewing ERISA claims,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, April 4, 2011 “Courts struggle with when limitations periods accrue,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, March 21, 2011 “’Asymptomatic’ is not a synonym for ‘cured,’” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, March 7, 2011 “Ruling points out difficulties of assessing disability,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, January 31, 2011 “What happens when ‘no good deed goes unpunished’?” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, January 17, 2011 “Who decides whether treatment is appropriate,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, January 3, 2011 “Courts interpret disability insurance limitations,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, December 20, 2010 “ERISA 'full and fair' review of voluntary appeals,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, December 7, 2010 “Impact of fee-shifting awards for partial success,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, November 15, 2010 “How federal circuits use de novo standard of review,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, November 1, 2010

“ERISA: a litigant's toy and a judge's nightmare?” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, October 18, 2010



“Court analyzes psychiatric illness and work,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, October 4, 2010 “Qualifying for disability benefits,” Our Voice (Newsletter of the National Spasmodic Dysphonia Association) Vol. 19, No. 2, 2010 “The duty to notify of post-employment benefit rights,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, September 20, 2010 “Using SSDI applications to screen disability claims,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, August 30, 2010 “The court wades through how a disability is defined,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, August 9, 2010 “A ruling that could protect thousands of claimants,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, July 26, 2010 “The standard of review can affect application of offsets,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, July 12, 2010 “Accidental death benefits to survivors of drunken drivers,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, June 21, 2010 “Considering a ‘prevailing party’ requirement, Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, June 7, 2010 “What Every Dentist Needs to Know About ERISA,” Hawaii Dental Journal, Vol. 40, No. 5 (2009) “What Process is Due in the Adjudication of ERISA Claims,” reprinted in Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation – Proceedings of the New York University 59th Annual Conference on Labor 685-721 (David J. Reilly ed.)(Wolters Kluwer 2010) “Comparing an ERISA benefit to a payroll practice,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, May 17, 2010 “Do complaints of debilitating pain result in disability?” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, May 3, 2010 “Courts face challenges with ERISA, limitations period,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, April 19, 2010 “Ninth Circuit Ruling Provides Greater Protection of Benefits,” American Association for Justice, Insurance Law Section Newsletter (Vol. 16, No. 1 2010)



“How the courts address ‘legal’ disabilities,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, April 5, 2010

“Court looks at deficiencies in determining disability,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, March 15, 2010

“How CIGNA handles or mishandles disability claims,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, March 1, 2010

“Who gets the last word in ERISA claim appeals,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, February 16, 2010 “A split in the circuits exists for ERISA benefits disputes,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, February 1, 2010 “Courts deal with issue of ERISA attorney fees,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, January 18, 2010 “ERISA: A Frankenstein made up of different laws,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, January 4, 2010 B. Magratten, editor, ERISA Survey of Federal Circuits, “Seventh Circuit” (2010 Edition)(with Michael Brown and Mark E. Schmidtke) “Applying deferential standard of review in evaluating claims,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, December 21, 2009 “Get to the truth on the matter,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, November 30, 2009 “Court revisits difficult issue of ‘total disability,’” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, November 16, 2009 “Battle over discretionary clauses likely to continue,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, November 2, 2009 “When a literal reading can be overridden,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, October 19, 2009 “9th Circuit ruling provides greater protection of benefits,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, October 5, 2009 “Clarity needed on contractual periods of limitations,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, September 21, 2009



“Ruling clarifies contractual limitations period,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, August 31, 2009 “Payment delays merely encourage denials,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues August 3, 2009 “Claims require an ‘independent decision,’ not a ‘review,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, July 6, 2009 “Efficiency, expediency need to give way to fairness,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, June 30, 2009 “Ruling provides thoughtful primer on discovery,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, June 15, 2009 “Claim decisions must be reasonable and accurate,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, June 1, 2009 “Ruling affirms Glenn’s impact on standard of review,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, May 18, 2009 “Settlement did not justify vacatur: U.S. court,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, May 4, 2009 “De novo review is not a rubber stamp,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, April 20, 2009 “Discretionary clauses under heavy fire,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, April 6, 2009 “Ruling shows courts must take more responsibility,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, March 23, 2009 “Ruling exposes defects in insurer’s determination,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, March 16, 2009 “Consider this before wrongfully denying a claim,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, March 2, 2009 “Court right to look at big picture in benefits case,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, February 2, 2009 “Ruling outlines scope of review in ERISA case,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, January 19, 2009



“Ruling puts Glenn to work,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, December 29, 2008 “Insurer functioned as administrator: court,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, December 15, 2008 “Ruling an indictment of Unum's operations,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, December 1, 2008 “An end to lenient regime of claim reviews,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, November 24, 2008 “Court finds conflict in review of claim,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, November 3, 2008 “Claimant not required to exhaust issues,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, October 13, 2008 “Insurer’s own guidelines dismissed as not binding,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, October 6, 2008 “Disability benefits adjudication: Attorney representing disability claimants,” Morgan & Sweet, eds., Neuropsychology of Malingering Casebook 476-487 (Chapter 38) (Psychology Press 2008) “Court rethinks its approach after Glenn ruling,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, September 22, 2008 “Appeals court clarifies factors for fee awards,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, September 8, 2008 “Mediating in the Appellate Court,” Litigation (American Bar Association Journal of the Section of Litigation)(Summer 2008) “Judge sees importance of discovery ruling,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, August 18, 2008 “Ruling underscores value of treating physician opinion,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, August 4, 2008 “Bankruptcy omission led to estoppel,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, July 21, 2008 “Ruling means end for lenient regime of reviews,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, June 23, 2008; reprinted in American Association for Justice, Insurance Law Section Newsletter (Summer-Fall 2008)



“Ruling shows problems with review system,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, June 9, 2008 “Offset ruling beneficial to claimants,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, May 19, 2008 “Court prevents review of doctor’s report,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, April 28, 2008 “The year in employee benefits, Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, 50th Annual Law Day Edition, April 26, 2008 “Court finds conflict in insurer, reviewer relationship,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, April 14, 2008 “Struggle over mental illness exclusions,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, March 31, 2008 “Court nixes insurer offset for dependent SSA benefits,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, March 17, 2008 “Rulings uphold state power over review clauses,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, March 3, 2008 “A painful burden for disability claimants,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, February 11, 2008 “10th Circuit sticks to review proceeding,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, January 28, 2008 “Occupation review should look into the past,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, January 21, 2008 “Wrongly used standard can deny worthy benefits,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, January 7, 2008 “Examining the nature of illness and injury,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, November 26, 2007 “Credibility should have been the issue in review,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, November 12, 2007 “Benefit plan took the necessary steps,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin,

Workplace Issues, October 29, 2007



“Court refuses to rubber-stamp denial,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, October 15, 2007

“Line between ‘job’ and ‘occupation,’” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin,

Workplace Issues, October 1, 2007 “7th Circuit puts ERISA litigation back on track,” Chicago Daily Law

Bulletin, Workplace Issues, September 17, 2007 “Ruling restores some balance to ERISA cases,” Chicago Daily Law

Bulletin, Workplace Issues, August 13, 2007 “Unfair ruling against reasoning behind ERISA,” Chicago Daily Law

Bulletin, Workplace Issues, July 16, 2007 “ERISA Litigation and Due Process,” American Bar Association, Employee Benefits Committee Newsletter (Summer 2007) “Insured’s silence not enough,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, July 2, 2007 “No reason to deny jury trials for ERISA claims,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, June 18, 2007 “Insurance adjuster wins bid for disability benefits,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, June 4, 2007 “What Process is Due in the Adjudication of ERISA Claims?” 40 John Marshall L.Rev. 811 (Spring 2007) “Disability Insurance Under the ERISA Law: Economic Security or Litigation Nightmare,” 25 J.Insur.Reg. 33 (Spring 2007) “ERISA Survey of Federal Circuits,” (2nd Edition) (Seventh Circuit – with Mark Schmidtke)(American Bar Association 2007)(B. Magratten, editor), Contributing author

“Big step toward clearing up ERISA litigation,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, April 30, 2007 “Former insurance exec fights for disability benefits,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, April 16, 2007 “Is expediency more important than accuracy,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, April 2, 2007



“Ruling on scope, standard of review disturbing,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, March 19, 2007

“Right result but confusing reasoning,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, March 5, 2007 “Insurer can’t ‘cherry pick’ medical report,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, February 12, 2007 “Insurer can’t keep manual from claimant,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, January 29, 2007 “Work ability more than just physical,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, January 15, 2007 “The Past, Present, and Future of Discretionary Clauses in ERISA Plans,” ATLA Insurance Law Section Newsletter, Vol. 13, No. 1, Fall 2006 “Opinion aberrational on work definition,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, December 18, 2006 “Standard of review didn’t prevent reversal,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, November 27, 2006 “Discretionary Clauses and Insurance,” 25 J.Insur.Reg. 15 (Fall 2006) “Oversights led to offsets for veteran’s benefits,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, November 13, 2006 “What Every Physician Needs to Know About Disability Insurance,” Journal of Medical Practice Management 22:113 (September/October 2006) “Court misunderstands definitions,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, October 16, 2006 “Court issues important case on attorneys’ fees,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, October 2, 2006 “Judge has neither love nor mercy for ERISA,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, September 18, 2006 “Where Social Security, insurance meet,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, August 28, 2006 “Court misses the mark on disability,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, August 14, 2006



“Ruling gives benefits, but not lawyer fees,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, July 24, 2006 “Court tries to end discretion debate,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, July 5, 2006 “Remand didn’t help when plan was at fault,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, June 26, 2006 “Decision begins to explain problems with ERISA litigation,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, June 12, 2006 “Attorney’s fees not enough to deter bad denial,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, May 30, 2006 “Benefit payments decisions should not be left up to insurers,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, May 16, 2006 “Conflicted over conflicts of interest,” Workplace Issues, Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, May 15, 2006 “Case shows it’s not ‘all or none’ for disability,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, May 1, 2006 “Court tackles ‘church plan,’ ‘self-reporting’ case,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, April 3, 2006 (reprinted as “More than name needed to make a ‘church plan,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, April 17, 2006) “Court too quick to allow in report,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, March 20, 2006 “The Failure of ERISA’s Promise,” published in H. Perritt (editor), 2006 Employment Law Update 219-246 (Chapter 10) (Aspen 2006) “Courts differ over weighing pain credibility,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, February 27, 2006 “Insurers not living up to ERISA duties,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, February 13, 2006 “The Disability Insurance Industry’s Attack on California’s Consumer Protection Initiative,” The Insurance Forum 16 (February/March 2006) “Court finds employee was ‘totally disabled,’” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, January 23, 2006



“Documents ruling cuts access to courts,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, January 9, 2006 “Court: Judgment Stays on Books,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, December 27, 2005 “Another court questions partiality of doctor,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, December 5, 2005 “Claimant denied fair chance to continue benefits,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, November 21, 2005 “Court applies common sense to ERISA,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, November 7, 2005 “Death apparently not enough to prove disability,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, October 18, 2005 “Judgment an incentive for careful claims review,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, September 14, 2005 “Law trying to get head around mental illness,” Workplace Issues, Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, August 29, 2005 “Standard of review in ERISA cases ‘too deferential,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, August 1, 2005 “Social security case buttresses benefits claim,” Workplace Issues, Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, July 18, 2005 “ERISA Survey of Federal Circuits,” (Seventh Circuit – with Mark Schmidtke)(American Bar Association 2005)(B. Magratten, editor), Contributing author “Appeals court rejects ruling on ‘tardy’ review,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, June 27, 2005 “1st Circuit Overlooks Crucial ERISA Distinction,”, Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, June 20, 2005 “Why remanding ERISA cases verges on absurd,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, May 23, 2005 “Changed definition halts disability benefits,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, May 2, 2005



“Deferential, yes, but certainly not inconsequential,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, April 18, 2005 “Social security findings should play key role,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, March 22, 2005 “ERISA ruling sounds warning on nasty tactics,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, March 8, 2005 “Chronic pain and disability claims,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, February 23, 2005 “Ruling warns against failure to communicate,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, February 9, 2005 “Judge questions distinction set for types of illness,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, January 17, 2005 “Judge takes aim at disability insurers, ERISA,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, January 3, 2005 “Fourth Circuit joins chorus in questioning tactics,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, December 20, 2004 “Fifth Circuit Stands Alone on Degree of Disability,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, December 1, 2004 “Erring on ERISA by looking for common sense,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, November 17, 2004 “Turning up the power of the lens raises the heat,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, November 5, 2004 “Ruling undercuts ERISA promise of protection, Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, October 20, 2004 “Cherry-picking info has its pitfalls,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, October 4, 2004 “Disability claims will falter without specifics,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, September 8, 2004 “Pre-existing conditions: symptoms versus diagnosis,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues,August 16, 2004



“Defining ‘disability’ means looking at duties,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, July 14, 2004 “The Paradox of the Misuse of Administrative Law in ERISA Benefit Claims,” 37 John Marshall Law Review 727 (2004) “Courts seek clarity on ‘subjective’ diseases,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, June 18, 2004 “When plaintiffs seek refuge of 5th Amendment,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, April 21, 2004 “Discretionary clauses starting to lose favor,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, April 2, 2004 “Court clears air on claims alleging conflicts,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Workplace Issues, March 10, 2004 “What Every Lawyer Needs to Know About Disability Insurance,” DCBA Brief (The Journal of the DuPage County Bar Association) November 2003 “Long Term Disability Insurance,” published in H. Perritt (editor), 2003 Employment Law Update 45-96 (Aspen 2003) “Cicio v. Does, 2003 U.S.App.LEXIS 2925 (2d Cir. 2/11/03) - Can We Extricate Ourselves From The Supreme Court's Quagmire of ERISA Remedies?” Published on-line at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=382680 (March 2003) “Using ERISA Against Those It Was Designed to Protect,” 30 The Insurance Forum 176 (February 2003) “Great-West v. Knudson-The Death Knell of Fiduciary Liability Claims,” Employee Benefits Committee Newsletter (American Bar Association) Fall 2002 “So You’re Stuck With ERISA...Now What?” Trial 49 (October 2002) “Navigating the Disability Insurance Maze,” The CFIDS Chronicle Summer 2002 “Winning Your Disability Case,” National Fibromyalgia Association Fibromyalgia Online, August 7, 2002 “What Physicians Should Know About Documenting Disability Insurance Claims,” The Journal of Medical Practice Management 16:326 (May/June 2001)



“Current ERISA Issues,” Illinois Advocate (National Employment Lawyers Association-Illinois Chapter)(December 2000) “A Physician’s Guide to Disability Insurance,” The Journal of Medical Practice Management 16:160 (November/December 2000) “ERISA Section 510 Claims,” Employee Benefits Law (Second Edition) (BNA/ABA 2000)(Chapter Co-Editor)

“The Nuts and Bolts of Lawyers’ Disability Insurance,” Chicago Bar Record 36 (May 2000)

“The Perils of Disability Insurance—Income Protection or Future Litigation,” Chicago Medicine, April 2000 “Hot ERISA Topics,” 88 Ill.Bar Journal 27 (2000) “Bringing an ERISA Claim: A Step-By Step Guide,” 88 Illinois Bar Journal 20 (2000); reprinted in The Advocate (Journal of the Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles) December/January 2000-2001 “ERISA—What you don’t know may hurt you,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, October 8, 1999 “Disability Claims Update -- Fibromyalgia and CFS,” Chicago CFS News 6 (April 1997) “ERISA Protects Insurers,” The CFIDS Chronicle 32 (Fall 1996) J.A. Hamilton and M.D. DeBofsky (editors), Rights of Postpartum Patients (Postpartum Support International 1995) "Broken Promises, Lost Benefits -- Holding Employers to Their Word," TRIAL 56 (April 1994) "Interests of Policyholders Must be Recognized," Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, September 21, 1992 "Medical Insurance Litigation Problems of Postpartum Patients," in J.A. Hamilton and P.N. Harberger, eds., Postpartum Psychiatric Illness -- A Picture Puzzle (University of Pennsylvania Press 1992) "Representing the Disabled -- A Guide to Attorneys' Fees," 1 Workplace Injury Reporter 25 (ATLA)(1991) "Wrestling With ERISA," The Brief (ABA) 19 (Winter 1990)



"Social Security Disability Law -- A Game Plan" TRIAL 18 (June 1988) "Truth and Consequences--Lie Detectors and Insurance Claims," YLS Journal (The Young Lawyers Section of the Chicago Bar Association) November 1987 "Mental Disorders -- Insurance May Cover Them," TRIAL 41 (December 1987) "'Premium Shock,' or The Malpractice Crisis Comes to LaSalle Street," YLS Journal (The Young Lawyers Section of the Chicago Bar Association) January-February 1987 "Improper Insurance Claims Practices: Fashioning a Private Remedy" Spring-Summer 1986 ITLA Law Journal 24 "Document Recording Revolution is Needed," Notary Viewpoint, Vol. XIV, No. 1, February 1986 (with William Alban) "The Computer Will Vanquish Title Insurers: True or False?" Real Property (ISBA) Vol. 31, No. 2, October 1985 (with William Alban) "When Good Deeds Go Unrewarded: Recording and Torrens Land Registration," 65 Chicago Bar Record 118 (1983) "Betamax on Trial: Universal City Studios v. Sony Corporation," 18 PEAL 95 (1979)

OTHER PUBLICATIONS “Disability E-News Alert,” Monthly electronic newsletter distributed to attorneys and claim managers—Publisher, Editor, and Author (2001-present) “Workplace Issues,” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin – Regular column on disability insurance law – 2004 to present Employee Benefits (BNA), Senior Editor and Chapter Editor (ABA Section on Labor and Employment Law, Employee Benefits Committee) PRESENTATIONS

“ERISA for Employment Lawyers,” Chicago Bar Association, Labor and Employment Law Committee, January 11, 2017 (with Mark E. Schmidtke)



“Parkinson’s Disease – Disability, Health Insurance, and Employment Claims: The Basics,” Webinar presented to National Parkinson Foundation November 17, 2016 (with Glenn Kantor and Bonny Rafel)

“Select Topics in Employee Benefits,” Chicago-Kent College of Law 35th Annual Conference on Not-For-Profit Organizations, Chicago, Illinois, June 9, 2016 (with Andreason L. Brown)

“Recent Developments in Disability Claims,” American Bar Association Section of Taxation, Washington, D.C., May 7, 2016 (with Mark Schmidtke, Denise Clark, and Gabrel Marinaro)

“Benefits Litigation Hot Topics-Inside the Minds of Plaintiffs’ and Defense Counsel,” Ogletree Deakins Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation Symposium, Chicago, Illinois (May 4, 2016) (with Mark E. Schmidtke)

“Pitfalls to Avoid in Settling Employment Disputes,” Equip for Equality/Disability Rights Consortium, Chicago, Illinois, April 27, 2016

“New Developments and Nuances in Life, Health, Disability, Managed Care, and Benefit Claims Litigation,” American Conference Institute 11th National Forum on ERISA Litigation, Chicago, Illinois, March 1, 2016 (with William Patton and Anthony Shelley)

“Annual ERISA Litigation Update,” WEB, January 27, 2016 (with Chris Boran)

“Recent Developments in ERISA Litigation,” Chicago Bar Association Employee Benefits Committee, December 11, 2015 (with Michael Graham)

“Ethics: Who is My Client and Other Ethical Pitfalls in ERISA Cases,” American Bar Association, 9th Annual Labor and Employment Law Conference, Philadelpha, Pennsylvania (November 7, 2015) (with Marjorie A. Butler, Benjamin Eisner, and Erin M. Sweeney)

Similarities and Differences Between Social Security Disability and Private Disability – Using Your Knowledge of Social Security Disability to Win Private Disability Claims, National Organization of Social Security Claimants Representatives, Denver, Colorado (October 30, 2015)

“Benefit Claims Litigation,” American Conference Institute 9th National Forum on ERISA Litigation, Chicago, Illinois, April 14, 2015 (with William Patton, Denise Clark, and Stephen Rosenberg) “Mark v. Mark – The Best and Worst of ERISA 2014 – So far. A Plaintiff and

Defense Perspective, American Bar Association, Tort and Insurance Practice



Section, 41st Annual TIPS Mid-Winter Symposium on insurance and Employee Benefits, Tucson, Arizona January 16, 2015 (with Mark Schmidtke) “2013-2014 Year in Review: Top ERISA and Employee Benefit Cases,” Chicago Bar Association, Employee Benefits Committee, November 21, 2014 (with Marie Casciari) “Benefit Claims – Litigation,” ERISA Basics National Institute, American Bar Association, Chicago, Illinois, October 16, 2014 (with Katherine Roe and Ada Dolph) “ERISA Basics Concepts – Statutory Overview,” ERISA Basics National Institute, American Bar Association, Chicago, Illinois, October 16, 2014 (with Charles Wolf, Judith Broach, and Timothy Hauser) “ERISA Litigation – Where It’s Been Recently and Where It’s Going,” Great Lakes Area TE/GE Council, Chicago, Illinois, July 18, 2014 “Benefit Claims Litigation: From Claims Review to Standard of Review and Discovery and Dispositive Motions,” American Bar Association ERISA Litigation National Institute, Chicago, Illinois, June 18, 2014 (with Lisa Gomez and Robert Rachal) “ERISA Liens/New Lien Statute 770 ILCS 23/50,” Illinois Trial Lawyers Association, Settlements, Liens and Technology Seminar, Oak Brook, Illinois April 5, 2014 “How courts interpret the meaning of ‘civil action’ as applied to benefit disputes under ERISA,” Third Annual ERISA, Employee Benefits, and Social Insurance National Conference, Benefits Law at the Crossroads: Whither U.S. Employee Benefits and Social Insurance Law? Marquette University Law School, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, March 28, 2014 “Six Things You Need to Know About Employee Benefits Law,” 2014 National Employment Lawyers Association (NELA) Seventh Circuit Conference, “What Every Plaintiff’s Employment Lawyer Needs to Know About …” Chicago, Illinois February 21, 2014

“Panel Discussion with the Honorable Edith Jones, Circuit Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit,” American Bar Association, Section of Labor and Employment Law, Employee Benefits Committee Midwinter Meeting, New Orleans, Louisiana February 7, 2014 (with Karen Mock, Myron Rumeld and Lisa Gomez)



“2013 Year in Review: Take Note – 10 Key ERISA Decisions,” John Marshall Law School Lunch and Learn, February 12, 2014 (with Mark Casciari)

"ERISA Litigation Update: Fallout from Amara," WEB (Worldwide Employee Benefits) Network (Chicago Chapter), January 22, 2014 (with Mark Schmidtke) “Benefit Claims: Litigation,” ,” 27th Annual National Institute on ERISA Basics, America Bar Association, Chicago, Illinois, October 16, 2013 (with Ada W. Dolph and Katherine Roe) “ERISA Basics Concepts- Statutory Overview,” 27th Annual National Institute on ERISA Basics, America Bar Association, Chicago, Illinois, October 16, 2013 (with Lisa M. Gomez and Charles B. Wolf) “Benefit Claim Litigation,” Thomson Reuters 26th Annual ERISA Litigation Conference, Chicago, Illinois, September 17, 2013 (with Howard Shapiro) “Disability Insurance Overpayments – How to Handle ‘Other Income’ Payments, American Association for Justice, San Francisco, California, July 21, 2013 “Fiduciary Liability: What’s Hot/What’s Not,” Professional Liability Underwriting Society (PLUS) Professional Risk Symposium, Chicago, Illinois, April 10, 2013 (with Rhonda Prussack, Charles C. Jackson, and Christopher Williams) "Five Things You Need To Know About Employee Benefits Law," 16th Annual Labor and Employment Law Institute, Illinois Institute of Continuing Legal Education, Chicago, Illinois, March 15, 2013 “2012 Year in Review: 10 ERISA and Employee Benefits Cases,” Chicago Bar Association, Employee Benefits Committee, November 16, 2012 (with Mark Casciari) “ERISA Claim Litigation,” Illinois Institute of Continuing Legal Education, Chicago, Illinois, October 19, 2012. Moderator and presenter (with Ada Dolph) “Long-Term Disability Claims,” American Bar Association, ERISA Litigation National Institute, Washington, D.C. June 7, 2012 (with James P. McElligott, Jr.) “Benefit Claims Litigation: From Claims Review to Standard of Review and Discovery and Dispositive Motions,” American Bar Association, ERISA Litigation National Institute, Washington, D.C. June 7, 2012 (with Lisa M. Gomez and Martha Jo Wagner) “ERISA – A Freakonomics Paradox,” Chicago-Kent College of Law, April 26, 2012



“Benefit Claims Update: Standard of Review, Discovery and Attorneys’ Fees: Where Are We After Glenn, Frommert & Hardt,” American Bar Association, Section of Labor and Employment Law, Employee Benefits Committee 2012 Midwinter Meeting, San Diego, California, February 16, 2012 (with Ada Dolph, Suzanne Metzger, and Lindsay Nako) “2011 Year in Review: Top 10 ERISA Cases,” Chicago Bar Association, Employee Benefits Committee, Chicago, Illinois, January 20, 2012 (with Mark Casciari) – repeated on February 10, 2012 for Illinois State Bar Association Employee Benefits Committee “SSDI and LTD – Differences and Similarities (Proving Disability, Onset, and Offsets), Chicago Bar Association, Social Security Law Committee, Chicago, Illinois, January 19, 2012 “Long Term Disability Claims,” American Bar Association, 21st National Institute on ERISA Litigation, Chicago, Illinois November 15, 2011 (with Elizabeth G. Doolin) “Benefit Claims Litigation: Claims Standard of Review and Discovery and Dispositive Motions,” American Bar Association, 21st National Institute on ERISA Litigation, Chicago, Illinois November 15, 2011 (with Lissa J. Paris) “In the Lion’s Den II – Surviving Cross-Examination,” 42nd Annual Meeting, American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, Boston, Massachusetts, October 27, 2011 (with Roger Z. Samuel, M.D. and Marla Hemphill, M.D.) “Legal Challenges in Disability Claims,” 7th Annual International DI Society Conference, Chicago, Illinois, October 16, 2011 “Pain and Disability,” American Association for Justice 2011 Annual Convention, New York City, New York, July 10, 2011 “Lessons to be Learned from Recent ERISA Cases,” Great Lakes Benefits Conference (American Society of Pension Professionals and Actuaries), Chicago, Illinois, June 23, 2011 (with Timothy Hauser and Mark Casciari) “Are we lawyers or social workers?” Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Chicago, Illinois, May 25, 2011 (with Jennifer Soule) “COBRA and HIPAA,” ERISA Basics National Institute, American Bar Association, Chicago, Illinois, May 20, 2011 (with Lisa M. Gomez) “Key Supreme Court and Seventh Circuit ERISA Decisions in 2010 and 2011,” John Marshall Law School Lunch and Learn, April 13, 2011 (with Mark Casciari)



“Representing Sick and Injured Employees and Employers Who Employ Them: Views from the Plaintiff’s and Defense Bar,” 14th Annual Employment Law Update, Illinois Institute for Continuing Legal Education, Chicago, Illinois, April 7, 2011 (with Joan Casicari and Kristin Case) “Key Supreme Court and Seventh Circuit ERISA Decisions in 2010 and 2011,” Chicago Bar Association, Employee Benefits Committee, March 18, 2011 (with Mark Casciari) “Litigating Long-Term Disability Claims,” 2nd Annual Employee Benefits Law Seminar, Institute of Continuing Legal Education in Georgia, Atlanta, Georgia March 17, 2011 “Long Term Disability Claims,” American Bar Association, 20th Annual National Institute on ERISA Litigation, Chicago, Illinois, November 12, 2010 (with Elizabeth Doolin) “Benefit Claims Litigation: Claims Standard of Review, Discovery, and Dispositive Motions,” American Bar Association, 20th Annual National Institute on ERISA Litigation, Chicago, Illinois, November 11, 2010 (with Deborah Davidson) “ERISA Civil Procedure, Discovery, Conflict of Interest, and Social Security and Other Offsets,” Eleventh Circuit ERISA Conference, Birmingham, Alabama, October 29, 2010 (with Honorable William Acker, Jr. and James Christie) “How Do I Win My Client’s Disability Insurance Claim,” National Organization for Social Security Claimants’ Representatives, Chicago, Illinois, September 24, 2010 “ERISA Reimbursement and Offset Issues,” American Association for Justice, Teleseminar on Update on ERISA Reimbursement and Subrogation (with John Wood, Matt Garrison, and Linda Magruder), September 21, 2010 “Disability Issues Relating to Parkinson’s Disease,” Rush Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders Symposium 2010, Rosemont, Illinois, May 21, 2010 “COBRA and HIPAA,” American Bar Association, Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, National Institute on ERISA Basics, Chicago, Illinois, May 21, 2010 “You’ve Won! Now What?” Payment Processing and Offsets from A to Z, NADR (National Association of Disability Representatives) Conference, Chicago, Illinois, April 27, 2010 (with Caryn Montague (moderator), Paul Shumard, Nancy Martinez, Alan Goldstein, and Fred Daley)



“The EEOC and Your Client – Working With and Against the EEOC in Prosecuting and Defending Charges of Discrimination, Federal Bar Association, Chicago Chapter, April 21, 2010. Moderator (with Diane Smason and Nina Stillman) “The Future of Discretionary Clauses in Health, Disability, and Life Insurance Plans,” BNA Webinar April 20, 2010 (with Mary Ellen Signorille, Charles Seemann III, and Mark Nielsen)

“Recent Case Law in ERISA,” American Association for Justice teleseminar - “A Survival Guide to ERISA Based Liens,” February 24, 2010 (with Caitlin S. Palacios (moderator), David Abney, and Scott Elkind) “A Review of 2009 ERISA and Related Cases,” Chicago Bar Association Employee Benefits Law Committee, Chicago, Illinois, January 15, 2010 “Long Term Disability Insurance Claims,” American Bar Association, 19th Annual National Institute on ERISA Litigation,” Chicago, Illinois, November 17, 2009 (with Mark E. Schmidtke) “ERISA Claims: Scope of Relief,” American Bar Association, 19th Annual National Institute on ERISA Litigation,” Chicago, Illinois, November 16, 2009 (with Charles C. Jackson) “ADA Redux: Current Developments and the Impact of the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments,” American Bar Association, Section of Labor and Employment Law, Third Annual CLE Conference, Washington, D.C. November 5, 2009 (with Peggy Mastroiani, Mary O’Melveny, Jeff Wray, and Patricia Slovak (Moderator) “In the Lion’s Den: Surviving Cross Examination,” American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 40th Annual Meeting, Baltimore, Maryland October 29, 2009 (with Roger Z. Samuel, M.D. and Henry Conroe, M.D.) “ERISA Litigation Hot Topics,” American Bar Association Joint Committee on Employee Benefits (TeleConference/Live Audio Webcast), October 16, 2009 (with Howard Shapiro (moderator), Kay Kyungsun Yu, Richard C. Shea, and Teresa S. Renaker) “Disability issues in patients and clients with multiple sclerosis,” Neurorehabilitation Symposium 2009, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, October 16, 2009 “Disability and Mental Illness – What it Means for You, Your Practice and Your Clients,” Defense Research Institute (DRI) 2009 Annual Meeting, Chicago, I



llinois, October 9, 2009 2009 (with Hon. Rebecca Pallmeyer, Warren von Schleicher, Hope T. Cannon and Barbara O’Connell) “The Other Fork in the Road – Social Security Disability, Short-Terrm and Long- Term Disability,” Institute of Continuing Legal Education in Georgia, “Employment Law for the General Practitioner and the Pros,” Atlanta, Georgia, September 24, 2009 “Subrogation/Reimbursement Clauses in ERISA Plan Documents: When Can They Be Enforced and When Can the Make Whole Doctrine Prevail,” American Association for Justice Annual Convention, San Francisco, California, July 27, 2009 “Subrogation – Litigation at Sunrise,” American Association for Justice Annual Convention, San Francisco, California, July 27, 2009 “ERISA Basics Concepts,” “ERISA Claims: Standing, Jurisdiction, and Scope of Relief,” and “Benefit Claims: Litigation,” American Bar Association, ERISA Basics National Institute, Chicago, Illinois June 10 and June 11, 2009 (with Lissa Paris, Douglas Selwyn, and Mark Casciari) “A Review of the Top 10 ERISA Cases in 2008 and to Date,” Illinois State Bar Association, Employee Benefits Section, Chicago, Illinois, April 17, 2009 (with Mark Casciari) “Doing Well by Doing Good – Making a Social Security Practice Work for You,” Federal Bar Association, Chicago, Illinois, March 24, 2009, Moderator (with Honorable Arlander Keys, United States Magistrate Judge; Honorable Paul Lillios, Regional Chief Administrative Law Judge, Social Security Administration, and Frederick Daley) “Mediation Skills and Strategies,” Illinois Institute for Continuing Legal Education 12th Annual Employment and Labor Law Update, March 20, 2009, Chicago, Illinois (with Honorable P. Michael Mahoney, United States Magistrate Judge and James D. Harbert); repeated on March 25, 2009, Champaign, Illinois ` (with Honorable Byron G. Cudmore, United States Magistrate Judge and Anthony E. Antognoli) “An ERISA Potpourri,” American Bar Association, ERISA Litigation, November 7, 2008, Chicago, Illinois (with Douglas M. Selwyn) “Benefit Claims Litigation: Claims Standard of Review and Evidence,” American Bar Association, ERISA Litigation, Chicago, Illinois, November 6, 2008 (with Lissa J. Paris)



“Detection of Malingering in Disability Evaluations,” American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 39th Annual Meeting, Seattle, Washington, October 25, 2008 (with Roger Z. Samuel, M.D., Henry Conroe, M.D., and Wendy Marlowe, Ph.D.) “The Supreme Court Speaks on ERISA Litigation Issues,” John Marshall Law School, Chicago, Illinois, September 25, 2008 (with Professor Kathryn Kennedy and Elizabeth Hopkins) “Are Courts Denying Employee Benefit Claimants Due Process of Law?” American Association for Justice, Insurance Law Section, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, July 13, 2008 “Dissecting the US Supreme Court’s Decision in Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Glenn Teleseminar,” July 10, 2008 (American Association for Justice)(With Eric Buchanan and Jonathan Feigenbaum) “Caveat Emptor! Everything You Need to Know About Disability Insurance,” MDRT (Million Dollar Round Table), Toronto, Ontario, June 25, 2008 (with Joe A. Sierra) “Subrogation, ERISA Basics, American Bar Association, Chicago, Illinois, June 6, 2008 (with Lissa J. Paris) “ERISA Claims: Standing, Jurisdiction and Scope of Relief, ERISA Basics, American Bar Association, Chicago, Illinois, June 5, 2008 (with Lissa J. Paris)

“Insurance Coverage for Eating Disorders,” Chicago Bar Association, Mental Health Law Committee, June 3, 2008 (with Mary Elsner) “Mental Illness Clauses in Disability Income Insurance Policies,” Teleconference, American Bar Association – Tort and Insurance Practice Section, May 21, 2008 (with Ian Smith and Vaughan Finn) “The Top Ten Lessons I Have Learned as an Employment Lawyer,” McDermott, Will & Emery ERISA Symposium, Chicago Illinois May 5, 2008 “Sereboff v. Mid-Atlantic – Implications and Case Law Update,” American Association for Justice – ERISA Update on Reimbursement Claims Teleseminar, April 8, 2008 “A Review of the Top 10 Employee Benefits Cases Since January 2007,” Great Lakes Benefits Conference (Co-sponsored by IRS and ASPPA), Chicago, Illinois, April 3, 2008 (with Mark Casciari)



“Disability Insurance: Individual and ERISA Claims,” Illinois Trial Lawyers Association – Insurance and Bad Faith Actions Seminar, Chicago, Illinois, February 18, 2008 “ERISA Civil Procedure,” 11th Annual Labor Law and Employment Short Course, Chicago, Illinois, February 14, 2008 “Top 10 Benefits Cases in 2007,” Chicago Bar Association, Employee Benefits Committee, January 18, 2008 (with Mark Casciari)

“Pre-Suit Requirement and Procedural Aspects of Litigating ERISA Claims,” Illinois Institute of Continuing Legal Eduation, ERISA Fiduciary Litigation -- Procedures and Tips, Chicago, Illinois, December 3, 2007 “Scope and Standard of Review,” Illinois Institute of Continuing Legal Education, ERISA Fiduciary Litigation -- Procedures and Tips, Chicago, Illinois, December 3, 2007 (with Mark A. Casciari) “Hot Topics in Employee Benefits Litigation,” American Bar Association, Section of Labor and Employment Law, Annual CLE Conference, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, November 8, 2007 (with Lissa J. Paris and Kay K. Yu) “Subrogation and Reimbursement,” 17th National Institute on ERISA Litigation, American Bar Association, Chicago, Illinois, November 1, 2007 (with Lissa J. Paris)

“Benefit Claims Litigation: Claim Standard of Review and Evidence,” 17th National Institute on ERISA Litigation, American Bar Association, Chicago, Illinois, November 1, 2007 (with Mark Casciari)

“Due Process and ERISA,” John Marshall Law School, Lunch and Learn, October 5, 2007 “Subrogation and Reimbursement,” ERISA Basics, American Bar Association, Chicago, Illinois, May 4, 2007 “ERISA Claims: Standing, Jurisdiction and Scope of Relief, ERISA Basics, American Bar Association, Chicago, Illinois, May 3, 2007 (with Lissa J. Paris)

“What Process is Due in the Adjudication of ERISA Claims?” John Marshall Law School Fifth Annual Symposium on Employee Benefits, Chicago, Illinois, April 25, 2007

“Insurance & Employment: Know Your Rights,” BMTInfonet (Bone & Marrow Transplant Information Network), Oak Brook, Illinois, April 14, 2007 (with Susan Loeb and Paul Drucker)



“The Convoluted World of ERISA,” Illinois Institute for Continuing Legal Education, 10th Annual Employment Law Short Course, Chicago, Illinois, February 22, 2007 “ERISA Law Update,” Chicago Bar Association, Employee Benefits Committee, Chicago, Illinois, January 19, 2007 (with Mark Casciari) “Status of ERISA Litigation and Attorneys’ Fees,” Annual Midwinter Symposium on Insurance, Employment and Benefits, American Bar Association, Tort, Trial and Insurance Practice Section, Laguna Beach, California, January 13, 2007 “Severance and Early Retirement Litigation,” ERISA Litigation, American Bar Association, Chicago, Illinois, November 10, 2006 (with Lissa J. Paris) “Detection of Malingering in Disability Evaluations,” American Association of Psychiatry and the Law, Chicago, Illinois, October 26, 2006 (with Henry Conroe, M.D., Roger Samuel, M.D., and Thomas McLaren, Ph.D.) “Disability Insurance Claims Litigation Update – A Plaintiff Attorney Perspective,” Maine Event 2006 (Smith Group Disability and Reinsurance Consultants), Kennebunkport, Maine, September 19, 2006 “State Laws that Survive ERISA Preemption,” Association of Trial Lawyers of America, Seattle, Washington, July 15, 2006 “ERISA Remedies,” ERISA Basics, American Bar Association, Chicago, Illinois, May 12, 2006 “Enforceability of Discretionary Clauses Post-Diaz, Under New State Regulations,

and After the UnumProvident Settlements,” American Conference Institute, Litigating Disability Insurance Claims, Miami, Florida, February 23, 2006 (with Mark Schmidtke and David Kalib)

“ERISA Developments – Point/Counterpoint,” with Mark Casciari, Chicago Bar Association, January 20, 2006 “ERISA Claim Appeals” and “Subrogation,” ERISA Litigation, American Bar Association, November 10, 2005 “Legal Aspects of Disability,” Midwest Pain Society, 29th Scientific Session, Chicago, Illinois, September 9, 2005 “ERISA Benefit Claims Procedures,” ERISA Basics, American Bar Association, Annual Meeting, Section of Labor and Employment Law, August 6, 2005



“Disability Insurance – Buying It and Securing It,” Post-Polio Health International, St. Louis, Missouri June 2, 2004 “ERISA Made Easy,” Illinois State Bar Association Law-Ed Series, Presented as part of “What’s New in Labor and Employment Law,” Chicago, Illinois (March 4, 2005); Bloomington, Illinois (March 11, 2005) “Severance and Early Retirement Litigation,” ERISA Litigation, American Bar Association, Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, Chicago, Illinois, November 12, 2004 (with Evan Miller, Jeffrey Lewis and Lissa J. Paris) “Subrogation and Reimbursement,” ERISA Litigation, American Bar Association, Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, Chicago, Illinois, November 11, 2004 (with Lisa Gomez)

“Benefit Claims Litigation: Claim Review and Exhaustion,” ERISA Litigation, American Bar Association, Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, Chicago, Illinois, November 11, 2004 (with Lisa Gomez)

“Ask an Attorney about Health Insurance Issues, Disability, Workplace Issues,” 7th International Thyroid Cancer Survivors’ Conference, Deerfield, Illinois, October 22, 2004 “What Every Lawyer Needs to Know About Disability Insurance, Consumer Lawyers of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii, June 29, 2004 “Employee Benefits Update,” Personnel Law Update 2004, Council on Education in Management, Oak Brook Terrace, Illinois, May 25, 2004 “Insurance Issues,” International Waldenstrom’s Macroglobulinemia Foundation, Lincolnshire, Illinois, May 22, 2004 “Ethics,” ERISA Basics, American Bar Association, Chicago, Illinois, May 20,

2004 (Panel discussion with Mark Casciari, Gabriel Minc, and Denise Clark) “The Relationship Between Long-Term Disability and Social Security Disability,” National Organization of Social Security Claimants’ Representatives, San Diego, California, May 12, 2004 (Panel discussion with Pamela Atkins, Frank Darras, Lawrence Rohlfing, and Elizabeth Lishner) “The Shifting Boundaries of ERISA Pre-Emption,” ERISA for Trial Lawyers, North Carolina Academy of Trial Lawyers, Raleigh, North Carolina, April 30, 2004



“The Paradox of the Misuse of Administrative Law in ERISA Benefit Claims,” Symposium on Employee Benefits Law, John Marshall Law School, Chicago, Illinois, April 2, 2004

“Recent Developments in ERISA Litigation,” (With Mark Casciari) Illinois State Bar Association, Employee Benefits Section, February 20, 2004 “Seventh Circuit ERISA Update,” Seventh Circuit National Employment Lawyers Association, Chicago, Illinois, February 16, 2004 “What’s Right and Wrong About The Trends in Benefit Litigation,” (with Mark Casciari) Chicago Bar Association, Employee Benefits Law Committee, November 21, 2003 “Benefit Claims Litigation: Standard of Review and Evidence,” (with Martha J. Wagner), ERISA Litigation – National Institute (American Bar Association), November 13-14, 2003 “LTD (Long Term Disability) Benefit Claims,” (with Lissa J. Paris), ERISA Litigation – National Institute (American Bar Association), November 13-14, 2003

“Recent Developments in ERISA Benefits and ERISA Preemption,” Decalogue Society of Chicago, November 5, 2003

“ERISA Update 2003 – Preemption, The Treating Physician Rule, and Cash Balance Pension Plans,” Chicago Bar Association, Labor and Employment Law Committee, September 10, 2003

“Prosecuting and Defending the ERISA Disability Case After Black & Decker v. Nord, American Bar Association, Section on Labor and Employment Law/Center for Continuing Legal Education, Teleconference Moderator and Participant, July 28, 2003 “ERISA Update 2003-Hall of Fame versus Hall of Shame,” Section on Health Care and Disability Law, Association of Trial Lawyers of America, San Francisco, California, July 22, 2003 “Benefit Claims Appeals” (with Mark Nielsen), “Benefit Claims Litigation (with

Mark Neilsen)” and “Ethics” (Panel Discussion with Mary Ellen Signorille and Lissa Paris), American Bar Association, “ERISA Basics,” Chicago, Illinois, June 5, 2003

“Handling Medicare and ERISA Rights of Reimbursement on Tort Recoveries,” (with Henry B. Vess III), Illinois Institute for Continuing Legal Education, April 1, 2003



“ERISA Developments,” Chicago Bar Association Labor and Employment Law Committee/Employee Benefits Committee (Panel Discussion), December 11, 2002 “ERISA Fiduciary Liability,” University of Michigan Law School (course on ERISA

law taught by Professor Dana Muir), Ann Arbor, Michigan, November 19, 2002 “ERISA Subrogation” (with Thomas Lawrence) and “Long Term Disability and Retiree Health Insurance Claims” (with Erin Sweeney), American Bar Association, “ERISA Litigation” Chicago, Illinois, November 14-15, 2002 “Reversal of Fortune? The Department of Labor’s New Claims Review Regulations,” (with Greg Braden) LexisNexis/Mealey’s-ERISA: A Practitioner’s Guide, Boston, Massachusetts October 28, 2002 “ERISA and Long Term Disability Insurance-How We Got Here and Where We’re Going,” Smith Group Maine Event, Portland, Maine, September 24, 2002 “So You’re Stuck with ERISA...Now What?” Association of Trial Lawyers of America, Atlanta, Georgia July 2002 “Age Discrimination,” Presented at “EEO Basics,” American Bar Association, Chicago, Illinois, June 6-7, 2002 “Litigating Long Term Disability Insurance Cases,” National Organization of Social Security Claimants’ Representatives, Atlanta, Georgia, May 10, 2002. “Update on Supreme Court ERISA Cases--2002,” Chicago Bar Association, Chicago, Illinois April 25, 2002 “Current Issues in Disability Insurance,” Chicago/Illinois State Medical Society, Midwest Clinical Conference, Chicago, Illinois, March 21, 2002 “The Ten Most Important Lessons Learned From This Past Year’s Employee Benefits

Cases,” Chicago Bar Association, Chicago, Illinois, March 14, 2002 “Violation or Vindication—Patients’ Rights in the Workplace,” Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation of America, Symposium for Doctors, Patients and their Families, Rosemont, Illinois, November 17, 2001 “Subrogation,” American Bar Association, Seminar on “ERISA Litigation,” Chicago, Illinois, November 10, 2001 (With Thomas H. Lawrence, Esq.) “Benefits Litigation,” Practicing Law Institute “Employment Law,” Chicago, Illinois,

October 30, 2001



“Long Term Disability,” FAME 2001, National Fibromyalgia Awareness Campaign, Chicago, Illinois, June 23-24, 2001. “Benefit Claims Litigation,” American Bar Association, Seminar on “ERISA Basics,” Chicago, Illinois, May 3, 2001 (With Erin Sweeney, Esq.) “An Update on ERISA Preemption,” Patient Advocate Foundation, National Legal Symposium, Loyola University School of Law (Chicago), April 7, 2001 “Recent Developments in Health and Disability Insurance,” Illinois State Bar Association, Seminar on “Insurance Coverage: An Update.” Chicago, Illinois April 5, 2001; repeated in Peoria, Illinois on April 18, 2001 “Current Issues in Disability Insurance,” Chicago Medical Society, Midwest Clinical

Conference, February 22, 2001 “Obtaining Insurance Coverage,” RESOLVE (Infertility Support Group), Lutheran General Hospital, Park Ridge, Illinois, February 13, 2001 “Benefits Litigation,” Practicing Law Institute “Employment Law,” Chicago, Illinois October 23-24, 2000 “Recent ERISA Developments,” Association of Trial Lawyers of America, ATLA 2000 Annual Convention, August 1, 2000 “ERISA §510 Claims,” American Bar Association, ERISA Basics Seminar, Chicago, Illinois, March 24, 2000 “Estoppel Claims,” American Bar Association, ERISA Basics Seminar, Chicago, Illinois, March 24, 2000 “Ten Things Not to Do With ERISA Plans (or--How to Help the Plaintiff Win)”, Chicago Bar Association Employee Benefits Committee, March 17, 2000 “Benefits Litigation,” Practicing Law Institute “Employment Law,” Chicago,Illinois November 15-16, 1999 “Navigating the Claims Review Process and Review of the Proposed DOL Regulations”, American Conference Institute, “Advanced ERISA Litigation” Chicago, Illinois October 25-26, 1999 “ERISA and Subrogation,” Patient Advocate Foundation, September 17-18, 1999 “ERISA, ADA and Health Insurance: What is Your Client Entitled To?,” Illinois State Bar Association, “Nuts and Bolts for the Tort Practitioner,” Lake Geneva, Wisconsin, June 25, 1999



“The Magic of ERISA,” American Conference Institute, “Litigating Disability Insurance Claims”, Boston, Massachusetts, June 10-11, 1999

“The Current Hottest Issues in Disability Insurance Litigation,” National Organization of Social Security Claimants’ Representatives, Washington, D.C., April 23, 1999

“An Introduction to ERISA,” Chicago Attorneys’ Council of Hadassah, Chicago, Illinois, March 16, 1999 “Preemption of Consumer Protections Under ERISA,” Presented at “Patient Protections: A Missing Link in Health Care,” Missouri Consumer Health Care WATCH Coalition, St. Louis, Missouri, May 1, 1998 “Overview of Insurance Coverage Litigation,” and “ERISA Basic Procedures,” Presented at Annual National Legal Symposium, The Patient Advocate Foundation, Loyola University School of Law, Chicago, Illinois, April 24-25, 1998 “Life, Health, and Disability Insurance -- An Update,” Presented at “What’s Covered and What’s Not: An Insurance Law Update,” Illinois State Bar Association, Chicago, Illinois, March 2, 1998 “Disability,” The CFIDS (Chronic Fatigue Immune Dysfunction Syndrome) Chronicle Live, Pheasant Run Resort, St. Charles, Illinois, October 26, 1997 (With Nancy Klimas, M.D.) “The Vocational Impact of Psychiatric Disabilities,” National Organization of Social Security Claimants’ Representatives (NOSSCR), Chicago, Illinois October 15-18, 1997 (With Michael Komie, Ph.D.) “ERISA and Long Term Disability Insurance Claims,” Smith Group Reinsurance “Maine Event”, Northeast Harbor Maine, September 17, 1997 “Avoiding and Litigating the ERISA Claim”, WEB, Chicago, Illinois, August 27, 1997 (Panel Discussion with Mark Casciari, J.D.) “The ADA and Disability Insurance” and “The ADA and Social Security Disability”, Presented to the Legal Services for People with Disabilities Committee, Young Lawyers Section of the Chicago Bar Association, June 18, 1997 “ERISA Benefit Claims -- A Plaintiff’s Perspective”, Defense Research Institute, Chicago, Illinois, May 15 -17, 1997



“Claiming Benefits Under Group Long Term Disability Plans,” National Organization of Social Security Claimants’ Representatives (NOSSCR), Washington, D.C., April 2-4, 1997 (Presented with Aba Heiman, J.D.)

“Avoiding Unintended Consequences -- Pitfalls Posed by the ADA and ERISA,” Presented to the Workers Compensation Lawyers Association Ltd., March 19, 1997 “ERISA and Insurance”, Presented to Chicago Bar Association, Insurance Law Committee, March 6, 1996 “Social Security Disability Claims and Awards--Their Relationship to Long Term Disability Insurance Claims and Benefits, Workers’ Compensation, and Discrimination Litigation”, Presented at NOSSCR Spring Conference, Washington, D.C., April 5-8, 1995. "Motion Practice in the Chancery Division," Chicago Bar Association Seminar on Chancery and Special Remedies, January 19, 1994. Repeated January 17, 1995. "Sexual Harassment in Employment", Chicago Bar Association Lunch and Lecture Program, October 15, 1993 "Postpartum Mental Illness and Insurance Claims--Strategy and Recent Developments," Seventh Annual Conference of Postpartum Support International, Rush-Presbyterian St. Luke's Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, June 24- 26, 1993

"ERISA, Disability Insurance, and Social Security -- Practice and Procedure," National Organization of Social Security Claimants' Representatives, National Spring Conference, Washington, D.C., June 9-12, 1993; repeated at NOSSCR Fall Conference, San Francisco, California, October 20-22, 1993

"Social Security Disability and Substance Abuse," May 12, 1993, Chicago Bar Association, Legal Rights for the Disabled Committee (Young Lawyers Division); Seminar on "Alcohol, Drugs and Your Client: A Guide to Legal Aspects of Addiction." "ERISA Claims and Extracontractual Damages," May 19, 1992, Chicago Bar Association, Insurance Law Committee, Seminar on Bad Faith and Extracontractual Damage Claims in Insurance Litigation "Social Security Disability", April 15, 1992, The Decalogue Society of Chicago "Social Security Disability", Chicago, Illinois, February 20, 1992, American Educational Seminars



"Social Security Disability", October 20, 1989, City of Chicago, Department on Aging and Disability, Southeast Regional Center "Breaking Through the Blues", Oakbrook, Illinois, June 19, 1989, NI-

ASPO/LaMaze Continuing Education Workshop; Presentation on insurance coverage for postpartum psychiatric illness,

Perspectives on Postpartum Depression and Criminal Responsibility -- May 28- 30, 1987 -- The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania -- "When a Postpartum Depression is Compensable Under an Insurance Policy That Limits or Excludes Coverage for Mental or Nervous Disorders" TESTIMONY

ERISA Advisory Council, United States Department of Labor, August 28, 2012,

Hearing on Managing Disability Risks in an Environment of Individual Responsibility. United States Senate, Committee on Finance, September 28, 2010, Hearing on

“Do Private Disability Policies Provide the Protection They Promise?” (available at http://finance.senate.gov/hearings/hearing/?id=1c1bd578-5056-a032-5237- 4dd9283e52ed)

National Association of Insurance Commissioners, Consumer Protections & Innovations Working Group, December 4, 2008, Testimony: “Disability Insurance Claims Handling Best Practices

ERISA Advisory Council, United States Department of Labor, July 7, 2005, Hearing on Communications Issues in ERISA Benefit Claims National Association of Insurance Commissioners, Committee on Consumer Protection, December 8, 2003. Testimony: “Why Discretionary Clauses in Disability Insurance Policies Must Be Prohibited.” United States Department of Labor, Hearing on Proposed Amendments to ERISA Claim Processing Regulations, Washington, D.C., February 19, 1999 United States House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means, Subcommittee on Social Security, May 13, 1987, Hearings on Attorneys' Fees in Social Security Disability Claims

PERSONAL Born: June 1956 Marital Status: Married, two children Rev. 1/2017



SIGNIFICANT REPRESENTATIVE CASES

Fontaine v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 800 F.3d 883 (7th Cir. 2015). ERISA Claim – Court of Appeals found that Illinois Insurance Regulation 50 Ill. Admin. Code § 2001.3 was not subject to ERISA preemption and precluded applicability of arbitrary and capricious standard of review. Raybourne v. CIGNA Life Ins.Co. of N.Y., 700 F.3d 1076 (7th Cir. 2012). ERISA Claim - Court of Appeals upheld district court ruling finding insurer improperly terminated disability benefits – The court found the Social Security disability benefit determination was not properly taken into consideration by the insurer, that the insurer was motivated by a financial conflict of interest, and that the insurer’s reliance on an independent medical examination was misplaced. The court also upheld an award of attorneys’ fees to Raybourne’s counsel. Stephan v. Unum Life Ins.Co. of America, 697 F.3d 917 (9th Cir. 2012). ERISA Claim - Court of Appeals overturned district judgment in favor of insurer – The court found Unum’s interpretation of the term “earnings” was arbitrary and capricious; the court also applied the fiduciary exception to attorney-client privilege to permit discovery of communications between claim analyst and in-house counsel during course of claim administration. Holmstrom v. Metropolitan Life Ins.Co., 615 F.3d 758 (7th Cir. 2010). ERISA Claim - Court of Appeals overturned district court denial of disability insurance benefits recognizing significance of pain in disability assessment and criticizing insurer for presenting claimant with “moving target” as to what evidence to submit. Diaz v. Prudential Insur.Co. of America, 499 F.3d 640 (7th Cir. 2007) and 422 F.3d 635 (7th Cir. 2005). ERISA claim – Court of Appeals overturned district court rulings for insurer finding that court should not have given deference to insurer’s findings. Court overturned two prior rulings and set precedent regarding standard of review applicable to ERISA claims and method of adjudicating ERISA claims. Feibusch v. Sun Life, 463 F.3d 880 (9th Cir. 2006). ERISA claim – Court of Appeals overturned district court ruling for insurer and ruled that lower court improperly applied discretionary standard of review. The court also ruled the district court improperly construed insurance contract. Seitz v. Metropolitan Life Insur.Co., 433 F.3d 647 (8th Cir. 2006). ERISA claim – Court of Appeals overturned district court ruling for insurer and ruled that even if claimant can perform some job duties, he qualifies for disability benefits if he cannot perform all job duties.

Ruttenberg v. U.S. Life, 413 F.3d 652 (7th Cir. 2005). ERISA claim – Court of Appeals overturned benefit denial and established doctrine of contra proferentem and “reasonable expectations of the insured” in benefit claims brought under ERISA.

Herzberger v. Standard Insurance Company, 205 F.3d 327 (7th Cir. 2000). ERISA claim—court overturned prior precedent to issue sweeping ruling modifying standard of review applicable in employee benefit cases.



Ladd v. ITT Corp., 148 F.3d 753 (7th Cir. 1998). ERISA Claim - Summary judgment for defendant reversed on appeal based on inconsistency between position taken by insurer with respect to Social Security disability payments; benefits awarded to plaintiff.

United States v. Clarence McClain, 934 F.2d 822 (7th Cir. 1991). Criminal appeal-- Major public corruption case. Several grounds on which Defendant was convicted were reversed by the Court of Appeals.

Castillo v. XLO Micromatic (Ex-Cello Corporation), No. 83 L 18654 (Cir.Ct.Cook County, Illinois). Personal Injury/Prooducts liability-- Die casting machine accident resulting in catastrophic injuries. Jury verdict: $1.2 million


DECLARATION OF JULIE GOLDSMITH REISER IN SUPPORT OF ... · 23. A true and correct copy of the firm...

Documents

Transcript of DECLARATION OF JULIE GOLDSMITH REISER IN SUPPORT OF ... · 23. A true and correct copy of the firm...