Customize Consent Preferences

We use cookies to help you navigate efficiently and perform certain functions. You will find detailed information about all cookies under each consent category below.

The cookies that are categorized as "Necessary" are stored on your browser as they are essential for enabling the basic functionalities of the site. ... 

Always Active

Necessary cookies are required to enable the basic features of this site, such as providing secure log-in or adjusting your consent preferences. These cookies do not store any personally identifiable data.

No cookies to display.

Functional cookies help perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collecting feedback, and other third-party features.

No cookies to display.

Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics such as the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.

No cookies to display.

Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.

No cookies to display.

Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with customized advertisements based on the pages you visited previously and to analyze the effectiveness of the ad campaigns.

No cookies to display.

Business

Supreme Court to Review ERISA Pleading Standards in Cornell Case

The U.S. Supreme Court is set to review the pleading standards that plaintiffs must meet in cases involving prohibited transactions under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). This critical case, titled Cunningham v. Cornell University, centers on allegations of excessive recordkeeping fees associated with Cornell’s retirement plans.

Currently, there is a split among various federal appellate courts regarding the necessary criteria for plaintiffs to survive a motion to dismiss in these types of cases. Some courts have determined that merely alleging that a prohibited transaction occurred is sufficient. In contrast, the 2nd Circuit and three other appellate courts have mandated that plaintiffs must also demonstrate that the plan acted with the intent to benefit a third party, such as a recordkeeper.

The plaintiffs from Cornell University have argued that the 2nd Circuit’s ruling misinterprets ERISA by shifting the burden of proof onto them, requiring them to negate potential defenses rather than placing the onus on defendants to prove exceptions to liability.

The crux of the issue lies in the pleading standards established by the 2nd Circuit, which require that claims regarding payments to retirement plan service providers must include allegations that the services provided were unnecessary or that the compensation received was unreasonable. This requirement has been contested by the Cornell employees, who argue that it conflicts with the standards set by the 8th and 9th Circuits.

In a prior ruling, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed most of the claims brought forth by the workers, allowing only a challenge regarding the use of TIAA-CREF Lifecycle Funds to proceed. This specific matter was settled by Cornell University for $225,000 in 2020.

If the Supreme Court decides to align with the pleading standards of the 8th and 9th Circuits, it could significantly alter the landscape for agreements between plan service providers and plan sponsors, making such arrangements

LEAVE A RESPONSE

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *