Richard J. Pearl
Subscribe to Richard J. Pearl's PostsRick Pearl focuses his practice on litigation involving the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). He represents companies, their benefits committees, plan administrators, fiduciaries, and service providers in complex, class-action litigation and Department of Labor lawsuits, audits, and investigations. His particular expertise is with actions for breach of fiduciary duty and prohibited transactions. Read Rick Pearl's full bio.
Federal District Court Dismisses Pension Actuarial-Equivalence Lawsuit
By Lisa Loesel and Richard J. Pearl on Oct 17, 2019
Posted In Benefit Controversies, Retirement Plans
In the string of pension-plan related, actuarial equivalence lawsuits, the court in DeBuske, et al. v. PepsiCo, Inc., et al. recently handed down the first decision favorable to plan sponsors. The DeBuske court’s narrow decision may, however, have limited impact going forward. Access the full article.
Continue Reading
High Court Pension Row May Have Broad Impact
By Richard J. Pearl on Oct 1, 2019
Posted In Benefit Controversies, Fiduciary and Investment Issues, Retirement Plans
A US Supreme Court case pitting pensioners against US Bank could have a wide-ranging impact on who can bring suit under ERISA, whether they participate in a defined benefit pension plan or a 401(k) plan. Recently, on Law360, McDermott’s Richard J. Pearl weighed in on the impact of Thole v. US Bank, one of three...
Continue Reading
Federal Court Certifies Class in Multiple-Plan ERISA Challenge to Health-Plan and Retirement-Plan Fees
By Richard J. Pearl on Sep 10, 2019
Posted In Benefit Controversies, Employee Benefits, Fiduciary and Investment Issues, Health and Welfare Plans, Retirement Plans
A Texas federal court certified a class in case brought by participants in one plan, and allowed those participants to represent participants in unaffiliated plans. The claims alleged that the defendants, who marketed and provided services to all of the plans, breached fiduciary duties by imposing excessive fees. See Chavez, et al. v. Plan Benefits Services,...
Continue Reading
Ninth Circuit Answers Some Questions About Arbitration of ERISA Claims
By Richard J. Pearl on Sep 5, 2019
Posted In Benefit Controversies, Employee Benefits, Retirement Plans
In two opinions—one published and one unpublished—the Ninth Circuit overturned prior precedent and held that a Plan amendment requiring arbitration meant that an individual had to arbitrate, on an individual basis, purported class claims alleging imprudent and disloyal management of 401(k) investments. This decision, although unpublished, provides support for plans wishing to add binding arbitration...
Continue Reading
Federal Court Dismisses Challenge to ESOP Transaction
By J. Christian Nemeth and Richard J. Pearl on Aug 13, 2019
Posted In Benefit Controversies, Employee Benefits, Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs), Fiduciary and Investment Issues
In Lee v. Argent Trust Co., the court dismissed ERISA claims challenging an ESOP stock transaction because the plaintiff, who “fundamentally misunderstands the nature of the” ESOP transaction, did not allege that she suffered any injury. This decision is important to educate other courts about economics, particularly in cases where plaintiffs rely on little more than...
Continue Reading
Kruse-Western Wins Partial Dismissal in ERISA Lawsuit over $244 Million Stock Sale
By Charnae Supplee and Richard J. Pearl on Aug 6, 2019
Posted In Benefit Controversies, Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs), Retirement Plans
The federal court affirmed ERISA’s limitations on the types of claims and remedies available under ERISA. This well-reasoned decision affords Congress the deference it deserves by limiting claims and remedies only to those Congress intended to provide in ERISA. Access the full story.
Continue Reading
Big ERISA Decisions on the Horizon—SCOTUS to Review Third ERISA Case this Term
By Brigid McCarthy, Brian Tiemann, J. Christian Nemeth and Richard J. Pearl on Jul 23, 2019
Posted In Benefit Controversies, Employee Benefits, Fiduciary and Investment Issues, Retirement Plans
The US Supreme Court recently agreed to review the Eighth Circuit’s decision in Thole v. US Bank, in which the Eighth Circuit held that participants in an overfunded defined benefit pension plan lack standing to sue for fiduciary breaches under ERISA. The Supreme Court’s decision in this case—the third ERISA case accepted by the court...
Continue Reading
Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Sulyma v. Intel Statute-of-Limitations Decision
By J. Christian Nemeth and Richard J. Pearl on Jun 18, 2019
Posted In Benefit Controversies, Employee Benefits, Fiduciary and Investment Issues, Retirement Plans
The US Supreme Court recently agreed to hear Sulyma v. Intel Corp. Investment Policy Committee, a case in which the Ninth Circuit ruled that ERISA’s three-year statute of limitations requires a plaintiff to actually read materials in order to start the running of ERISA’s three-year statute of limitations. ERISA § 413(2) bars actions more than...
Continue Reading
Former Employee’s Release Agreement Bars ERISA Claim Against ESOP Fiduciary
By J. Christian Nemeth and Richard J. Pearl on May 21, 2019
Posted In Benefit Controversies, Employee Benefits, Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs), Fiduciary and Investment Issues, Retirement Plans
A recent summary-judgment decision explains how individual releases can bar the individual from pursuing ERISA fiduciary-breach claims on behalf of the plan. A plan, employer or fiduciary that wants to ensure a release that includes ERISA claims on behalf of a plan should consider language that addresses the court’s areas of inquiry in the case,...
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
