Mary Komornicka, JD, CEBS Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren LLP.
-
Upload
todd-robbins -
Category
Documents
-
view
215 -
download
0
Transcript of Mary Komornicka, JD, CEBS Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren LLP.
![Page 1: Mary Komornicka, JD, CEBS Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren LLP.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032702/56649cec5503460f949b8795/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Mary Komornicka, JD, CEBSLarkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren LLP
![Page 2: Mary Komornicka, JD, CEBS Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren LLP.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032702/56649cec5503460f949b8795/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Major Supreme Court DecisionsLaRue v DeWolff
MetLife v Glenn
![Page 3: Mary Komornicka, JD, CEBS Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren LLP.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032702/56649cec5503460f949b8795/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Standard of ReviewQuestion: When the courts are
reviewing the decision by a plan fiduciary, how much weight do they give to that decision ?
None (de novo)Considerable amount (abuse of
discretion)
![Page 4: Mary Komornicka, JD, CEBS Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren LLP.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032702/56649cec5503460f949b8795/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Prior StandardCourts apply “abuse of discretion” if
the plan document provided the plan administer with “discretionary authority,”
Otherwise de novo.
Firestone
![Page 5: Mary Komornicka, JD, CEBS Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren LLP.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032702/56649cec5503460f949b8795/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
ERISA RightsQuestion: on what basis can a participant
sue?
For his own benefit due § 502(a)(1)
For damages due to benefits denied§ 502(a)(2)
For a breach of fiduciary duty§ 502(a)(3)
![Page 6: Mary Komornicka, JD, CEBS Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren LLP.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032702/56649cec5503460f949b8795/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Suing for Plan Benefits § 502(a)(1)
A plan participant must exhaust all administrative and appeal remedies available under the terms of the plan document before filing action in federal court.
Firestone
![Page 7: Mary Komornicka, JD, CEBS Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren LLP.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032702/56649cec5503460f949b8795/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
For damages due to benefits denied
Participant cannot sue for compensatory or punitive damages resulting from benefit denial or delay
Russell
“We are reluctant to tamper with an enforcement scheme crafted with such evident care as the one in ERISA.”
![Page 8: Mary Komornicka, JD, CEBS Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren LLP.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032702/56649cec5503460f949b8795/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
For a breach of fiduciary duty § 502(a)(2)
Can sue for losses to the plan arising from breaches of fiduciary duty but not compensatory or punitive damages to an individual.
Russell
![Page 9: Mary Komornicka, JD, CEBS Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren LLP.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032702/56649cec5503460f949b8795/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
For a breach of fiduciary duty§ 502(a)(3) Equitable RemediesConflicting decisions
Restricted traditional “equitable" remedies Mertens and Knudson
Policy and “appropriate” remedies Variety
Justices Scalia and Thomas consistently hold for “traditional” equitable remedies
Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Stevens and Souter commonly look at policy and “appropriate”
![Page 10: Mary Komornicka, JD, CEBS Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren LLP.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032702/56649cec5503460f949b8795/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
LaRue v DeWolffBackgroundTwice submitted change in
investmentsDidn’t happenLoss of $150,000Sued fiduciaries
![Page 11: Mary Komornicka, JD, CEBS Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren LLP.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032702/56649cec5503460f949b8795/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
LaRue v DeWolffThree Decisions – all saying LaRue can sue
1.Stevens (majority) – Retirement Plans are now DC, need to recognize the new reality.
2.Chief Justice Roberts – This is a benefit claim
3.Thomas and Scalia – A loss to one account is a loss to the plan as a whole
![Page 12: Mary Komornicka, JD, CEBS Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren LLP.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032702/56649cec5503460f949b8795/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Majority OpinionDefined contribution plans are
different, and a “fiduciary misconduct need not threaten the solvency of the entire plan to reduce benefits below the amount that participants would otherwise receive.”
It is sufficient that the fiduciary breach “impair[ed] the value of plan assets in a participant’s individual account” for it to be deemed a plan injury.
![Page 13: Mary Komornicka, JD, CEBS Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren LLP.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032702/56649cec5503460f949b8795/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Roberts OpinionThe claim is subject to all the
administrative rules regarding filing for a claim and exhausting any administrative remedies (appeals) prior to filing any federal action.
§ 502(a)(1)
![Page 14: Mary Komornicka, JD, CEBS Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren LLP.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032702/56649cec5503460f949b8795/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Thomas & Scalia“When a defined contribution plan
sustains losses, those losses are reflected in the balances in the plan accounts of the affected participants, and a recovery of those losses would be allocated to one or more individual accounts”
Merely bookkeeping difference between DB and DC
![Page 15: Mary Komornicka, JD, CEBS Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren LLP.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032702/56649cec5503460f949b8795/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
What’s the Difference?Roberts – Benefits claim
Must follow all internal claims & appeals procedures
Creates record that the court can rely uponSource of funds – plan assetsHow can an active employee file claim for
benefits?
![Page 16: Mary Komornicka, JD, CEBS Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren LLP.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032702/56649cec5503460f949b8795/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
What’s the Difference?Thomas & Scalia – Plan is the sum of
its partsFiduciary breach for the lossFiduciary must make plan wholeWhat if the trade was executed in wrong
account?Differences between DB and DC are more than
just the existence of individual accounts
![Page 17: Mary Komornicka, JD, CEBS Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren LLP.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032702/56649cec5503460f949b8795/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
What’s the Difference?Steven’s (majority) –
Fiduciary breach for the lossFiduciary must make plan wholeRecognizes that the rules set for DB plans may
not work for DC plans
![Page 18: Mary Komornicka, JD, CEBS Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren LLP.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032702/56649cec5503460f949b8795/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Impact of LaRueIndividual participants can sue
based on fiduciary breach that impacted only one or a few participants
7th Circuit has used LaRue as basis for “stock-drop” cases to continue
May be basis for excessive fee cases
![Page 19: Mary Komornicka, JD, CEBS Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren LLP.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032702/56649cec5503460f949b8795/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
MetLife v GlennLTD ClaimGranted disability benefits “own occ”
basisMetLife encouraged Glenn to file for SSASSA found Glenn total & permanent
disabledMetLife took 80% of back SS benefitsAttorneys took other 20%
MetLife found Glenn not disabled, ended benefits
![Page 20: Mary Komornicka, JD, CEBS Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren LLP.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032702/56649cec5503460f949b8795/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
MetLife v GlennQuestion: Since MetLife was both
plan administrator and payor of benefits, does this conflict of interest change the standard of review?
![Page 21: Mary Komornicka, JD, CEBS Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren LLP.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032702/56649cec5503460f949b8795/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Conflict of InterestMajority Opinion –
Still apply deferential standard of reviewJudge should take into account the
conflict of interest when determining if fiduciary abused his discretionary powers
Totality of circumstancesWhen there is a structural separation,
then importance of conflict of interest is minimized
![Page 22: Mary Komornicka, JD, CEBS Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren LLP.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032702/56649cec5503460f949b8795/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Roberts & ScaliaDifferent opinions, and different
results but have similar basisCourts should only consider conflict
of interest when it impacts the motive for the decision
Think the majority’s opinion is muddy
![Page 23: Mary Komornicka, JD, CEBS Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren LLP.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032702/56649cec5503460f949b8795/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Impact of MetLifeRecognize where there is a conflict
of interestSeparate functionsDocument decision making process
![Page 24: Mary Komornicka, JD, CEBS Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren LLP.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032702/56649cec5503460f949b8795/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Questions
Discussion