NEW YORK - Without providing any detail, the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Nov. 10 declined to grant a French company's motion for rehearing or rehearing en banc of the court's previous ruling affirming a jury's verdict against the company for violations of federal securities laws (In re Vivendi S.A. Securities Litigation, No. 15-180, 2nd Cir.).
CINCINNATI - The Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Nov. 9 affirmed a lower federal court's finding that there is no coverage under a financial institution bond or an errors and omissions insurance policy for claims arising from the alleged $2.6 million theft committed by an insured's employee (Hantz Financial Services Inc., et al v. American Int'l Specialty, et al., No. 15-2237, 6th Cir.).
CHICAGO - An appraisal clause's use of the word, "binding" made clear to an insured that by participating in the appraisal process, it foreclosed its opportunity to litigate the amount an insurer owed it for damage to a building covered by the insurance policy, an Illinois federal judge ruled Nov. 7, dismissing a breach of contract claim (70th Court Condo Association v. Ohio Security Insurance Co. and Donan Engineering Co. Inc., No. 16-07723, N.D. Ill.; 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153959).
CINCINNATI - A Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on Nov. 8 affirmed that former Chrysler Corp. executives' age discrimination claim is preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act because it was brought outside the statute of limitations applicable to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) (John Loffredo, et al. v. Daimler AG, et al., No. 15-1443, 6th Cir.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. - A District of Columbia federal judge on Nov. 4 denied the National Association for Fixed Annuities' (NAFA) motion for a preliminary injunction against the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) fiduciary rule and granted the DOL's request for summary judgment, saying that the DOL did not go beyond its statutory authority when it extended the reach of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act to individual retirement accounts (The National Association of Fixed Annuities v. Thomas E. Perez, et al., No. 16-1035, D. D.C.; 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153214).
SAN FRANCISCO - A federal judge in California on Nov. 2 appointed a pair of investors as lead plaintiff in a securities class action lawsuit against Charles Schwab Corp. and others, ruling that the investors have the largest financial interest in the litigation and meet the statutory requirements of typicality and adequacy (Robert Crago v. Charles Schwab & Co. Inc., et al., No. 16-3938, N.D. Calif.).
RICHMOND, Va. - A district court misinterpreted a disability plan's provisions when it determined that the plan and its administrator are bound by the disability onset date determined by the Social Security Administration (SSA), the plan defendants argue in a Nov. 2 brief filed in the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (Jesse Solomon v. Bert Bell/Pete Rozelle NFL Player Retirement Plan, et al., No. 16-1730, 4th Cir.).
NEW YORK - Standard lock-up agreements in the initial public offering (IPO) for Facebook Inc. between lead underwriters of the IPO and pre-IPO shareholders are not sufficient, alone, to render those parties a group under federal securities law, a Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel ruled Nov. 3 (Robert Lowinger, et al. v. Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, et al., No. 14-3800, 2nd Cir.; 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 19887).
SAN FRANCISCO - A federal judge in California on Nov. 2 appointed a pair of investors as lead plaintiffs in a securities class action lawsuit against Charles Schwab Corp. and others, ruling that the investors have the largest financial interest in the litigation and meet the statutory requirements of typicality and adequacy (Robert Crago v. Charles Schwab & Co. Inc., et al., No. 16-3938, N.D. Calif.).
SAN FRANCISCO - A federal judge in California on Oct. 28 appointed the law firm of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd to serve as lead counsel in a securities class action lawsuit against LendingClub Corp. and certain of its current and former executive officers, ruling that the law firm "was within the scope of several reasonable choices and was not influenced by any pay-to-play considerations" (Steeve Evellard v. LendingClub Corp., et al., No. 16-2627, N.D. Calif.).
FLINT, Mich. - A Michigan federal judge on Oct. 31 denied approval of a confidential wage-and-hour settlement between an employer and its alarm response security officers (AROs), opining that she was unable to determine, based on the information provided, that the settlement is fair and reasonable (Marcus Williams, et al. v. Alimar Security, Inc., No. 13-12732, E.D. Mich.; 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150119).
BAY CITY, Mich. - A Michigan federal judge on Oct. 27 stood by his dismissal of an Indian tribe's claim that its health care plan administrator breached its fiduciary duty under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by failing to pay Medicare-like rates (MLRs) for certain health services but agreed with the parties that the tribe can still proceed with an ERISA claim based on the allegation that the administrator had a practice of hiding certain access fees (Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan, et al. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, No. 16-cv-10317, E.D. Mich.; 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148615).
DALLAS - A Texas federal judge on Oct. 24 partially denied a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim in an action in which a man says he was illegally fired by his employer so it could stop paying for his medical expenses under its medical insurance plan, finding that he has sufficiently alleged facts that would support a claim under Employee Retirement Income Security Act Section 510 (Steve Wesley Culver, et al. v. United Commerce Centers Inc., et al., No. 3:16-cv-01055, N.D. Texas; 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146939).
HOUSTON - A federal judge in Texas on Oct. 21 ruled that dismissal of an amended complaint in a securities class action lawsuit against parties to a merger deal is proper because lead plaintiffs failed to show that alleged misrepresentations and omissions made by the parties regarding debt and future distributions issues were not publicly available and did not contain the required cautionary language (Irving Braun, et al. v. Eagle Rock Energy Partners, LP, et al., No. 15-1470, S.D. Texas; 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146035).
CHICAGO - Joining its sister circuits, a Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on Oct. 24 held that a health plan trustee's suit against insurers to recoup amounts it paid for the beneficiaries' medical care seeks legal relief, not equitable relief, and as such is not authorized by Employee Retirement Income Security Act Section 502(a)(3) (Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Health and Welfare Fund, et al. v. American International Group Inc., et al., No. 15-2237, 7th Cir.; 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 19165).
ROCHESTER, N.Y. - A New York federal judge on Oct. 19 ordered Xerox to disclose the amount of fees it was charged and paid to its law firms in an action over Xerox's violation of the notice requirements of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act when it applied an offset to pension benefits of rehired workers (Paul J. Frommert, et al. v. Sally L. Conkright, et al., No. 00-CV-6311, W.D. N.Y.; 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144746).
OKLAHOMA CITY - Dismissal of insurance breach of contract and bad faith claims against an insurer is not proper because an insurance policy's no action clause is inapplicable, a federal judge in Oklahoma said Oct. 19 (Wilbanks Securities Inc., et al. v. Scottsdale Insurance Co., et al., No. 16-294, W.D. Okla.; 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144761).
NEW YORK - A New York federal judge on Oct. 13 allowed three counts in a putative class action complaint alleging that Deutsche Bank entities mismanaged their 401(k) plan in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act to proceed, saying that the plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary duty claim plausibly alleges that the plan fiduciaries breached their duties to act in the best interest of the plan and with due care by failing to remove excessively costly proprietary mutual funds (Ramon Moreno, et al. v. Deutsche Bank Americas Holding Corp., et al., No. 1:15cv9936, S.D. N.Y.; 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142601).