McDermott Will & Emery
Subscribe to McDermott Will & Emery's PostsCOVID-19 FAQs: For Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation
By Erin Steele, Erin Turley, Evan A. Belosa, Joshua N. Lerner, Jacob Mattinson, Judith Wethall, McDermott Will & Emery, Sarah L. Engle, Brian Tiemann, Allison Wilkerson, Andrew Liazos and William R. Pomierski on Mar 26, 2020
Posted In Employee Benefits, Employment, Executive Compensation, Health and Welfare Plans, Retirement Plans
Coronavirus (COVID-19) raises serious concerns for employers of all shapes and sizes, across all industries and in every business sector. As the impact of COVID-19 continues to grow, many employers are faced with new challenges that affect not only their businesses and their employees, but the health and welfare, retirement and executive compensation plans and...
Continue Reading
DOL and IRS Expand Access to Multiple Employer Plans and Propose to Eliminate the ‘One Bad Apple’ Rule
By Joshua N. Lerner and McDermott Will & Emery on Dec 17, 2019
Posted In Employee Benefits, Retirement Plans
Recently, the Department of Labor (DOL) published final rules clarifying the circumstances under which “bona fide” groups or associations of employers and professional employer organizations (PEOs) may be permitted to sponsor single defined contribution multiple employer plans (MEPs). Concurrently, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) published proposed rules detailing an exception to the “one bad apple”...
Continue Reading
Finally! First Circuit Overturns the Sun Capital ERISA Multiemployer Plan Liability Case—But Risks Remain for Private Equity
By McDermott Will & Emery on Dec 5, 2019
Posted In Benefit Controversies, Employee Benefits, Retirement Plans
The First Circuit issued a decision holding that two private equity funds involved in a case are not required to pay for the withdrawal limit of a portfolio company. Despite the limited victory, the guiding rule with respect to defined benefit plan and multiemployer plan pension liabilities remains “buyer beware,” as applicable law continues to...
Continue Reading
Oracle Granted Partial Summary Judgment in 401(k) Fees/Investment Option Case
By McDermott Will & Emery and Richard J. Pearl on Apr 2, 2019
Posted In Benefit Controversies, Employee Benefits, Fiduciary and Investment Issues
The US District Court for the District of Colorado granted partial summary judgment to 401(k) fiduciaries, holding that ERISA’s six-year statute of repose barred some claims and rejecting challenges to the plan’s fees. Access the full article.
Continue Reading
Still No Right to Jury Trial – MIT 401(k) Plan Participants Not Entitled to Jury Trial of ERISA Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claims
By McDermott Will & Emery and Richard J. Pearl on Mar 12, 2019
Posted In Benefit Controversies, Employee Benefits, Fiduciary and Investment Issues, Retirement Plans
The District of Massachusetts court struck the plaintiffs’ jury-trial demand in their ERISA complaint for damages and equitable relief against 401(k) plan fiduciaries. The court followed the “great weight of authority” in ruling that there is no right to trial by jury in ERISA actions for breach of fiduciary duty. Access the full article.
Continue Reading
Piling On: Corporations Support the New York Times in Multiemployer Pension Calculation Dispute
By Diane Morgenthaler, Erin Steele, McDermott Will & Emery and Richard J. Pearl on Feb 19, 2019
Posted In Benefit Controversies, Employee Benefits, Retirement Plans
Several large employers are disputing how much money the New York Times owes a union multiemployer pension fund. Recently, six companies—including US Foods Inc. and United Natural Foods Inc.—filed an amicus brief supporting the New York Times in its case before the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Ruprecht Co., an Illinois meat...
Continue Reading
Worker Classification: Complications Beyond the Front Page
By Ellen M. Bronchetti, Erin Turley, Maria C. Rodriguez, McDermott Will & Emery and Ron Holland on Feb 7, 2019
Posted In Employee Benefits, Employment
When California’s Dynamex decision rolled out the “ABC test”, it placed the burden on the employer to prove independent contractor (IC) status. In a presentation at the Employment and Employee Benefits Forum in California, McDermott’s lawyers discussed the implications of Dynamex, as it applies to various types of employers as well as those using staffing...
Continue Reading
Ninth Circuit Clarifies “Actual Knowledge” for ERISA’s Statute of Limitations
By McDermott Will & Emery and Richard J. Pearl on Jan 15, 2019
Posted In Benefit Controversies, Employee Benefits, Fiduciary and Investment Issues, Retirement Plans
Late last year, the Ninth Circuit held that in order to trigger ERISA’s three-year statute of limitations a defendant must demonstrate that a plaintiff has actual knowledge of the nature of an alleged breach. Accordingly, the court held that merely having access to documents describing an alleged breach of fiduciary duty is not sufficient to...
Continue Reading
IRS Provides 403(b) Plan Relief for Improper Exclusion of Part-Time Employees
By McDermott Will & Emery and Joseph K. Urwitz on Dec 18, 2018
Posted In Retirement Plans
The IRS recently released Notice 2018-95 to provide transition relief to 403(b) plan sponsors that improperly excluded part-time employees from making elective deferrals under their plans. Employers must begin to operate the part-time employee exclusion under their 403(b) plans correctly for the plan year immediately following the transition relief period, which will mean as soon...
Continue Reading
First Circuit Holds Defendants Have Burden to Negate Loss Causation in ERISA Fiduciary Duty Cases
By McDermott Will & Emery and Chris C. Scheithauer on Nov 8, 2018
Posted In Employee Benefits, Fiduciary and Investment Issues, Retirement Plans
The US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has solidified a circuit split on who has burden of proving loss causation in ERISA breach of fiduciary duty cases. The First Circuit joined the Fourth, Fifth and Eighth Circuits holding that once a plaintiff demonstrates a fiduciary breach, the defendant has the burden to negate...
Continue Reading
