NEW HAVEN, Conn. - A reinsurer on May 26 asked a federal court in Connecticut to order another reinsurer to post pre-pleading security in a dispute over a reinsurance billing of more than $1 million because the other reinsurer does not have a license to offer reinsurance in Connecticut (Select Insurance Company v. Excalibur Reinsurance Corporation, f/k/a PMA Capital Insurance Company, No. 15-cv-00715, D. Conn.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Supreme Court on May 26 declined to review the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruling that a shareholder-owner's state law claims related to improper cancellation of her health care coverage were preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (CeCelia Catherine Ibson v. United Healthcare Services, Inc., No. 14-1119, U.S. Sup.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. - In a notice filed May 26, the plaintiffs in a lawsuit regarding the data collection activities of the National Security Agency (NSA) advised the District of Columbia U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals of a recent Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruling that deemed the NSA's program not authorized by the USA Patriot Act (Larry Elliott Klayman, et al. v. Barack Hussein Obama, et al., No. 14-5004, 14-5005, 14-5016, 14-5017, D.C. Cir.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a unanimous opinion on May 18 that the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals erred in holding that Employee Retirement Income Security Act Section 413(1) bars breach of fiduciary duty claims based on the fiduciaries' initial selection of plan investments without considering "the contours of the alleged breach of fiduciary duty" under trust law (Glenn Tibble, et al. v. Edison International, et al., No. 13-550, U.S. Sup.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. - In a letter filed May 15, the U.S. government defendants in a lawsuit regarding the surveillance activities of the National Security Agency (NSA) advised the District of Columbia U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals of a recent ruling in which the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals found "no reasonable expectation of privacy in telephone metadata" (Larry Elliott Klayman, et al. v. Barack Hussein Obama, et al., No. 14-5004, 14-5005, 14-5016, 14-5017, D.C. Cir.).
KANSAS CITY, Kan. - A federal judge in Kansas on May 14 dismissed a securities class action complaint, ruling that lead plaintiffs in the action failed to plead an actionable misstatement and scienter in making their federal securities law claims (Wayne E. Anderson v. Spirit AeroSystems Holdings Inc., et al., No. 13-2261, D. Kan.; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63179).
WASHINGTON, D.C. - Noting the Federal Trade Commission's increased number of lawsuits and activity related to data security enforcement in recent years, a Virginia man who claims to be a blogger and former government employee filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on May 13, seeking to compel the commission to disclose its guidelines "for what conduct or omission constitutes an unfair act or practice" related to data security (Philip Reitinger v. Federal Trade Commission, No. 1:15-cv-00725, D. D.C.).
NEW ORLEANS - A plan management agreement between Humana Health Plan and a health plan's administrator, which provided that Humana would supply subrogation and recovery services, did not vest Humana with discretionary authority sufficient to make Humana a fiduciary with standing to bring claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 on May 11 (Humana Health Plan, Inc. v. Patrick Nguyen, No. 14-20358, 5th Cir.; 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 7741).
NEW YORK - A federal judge in New York on May 11 denied a petition to depose convicted Ponzi scheme mastermind Bernard L. Madoff, ruling that investors who lost their life savings in Madoff's massive Ponzi scheme have failed to meet the statutory requirements for filing such a petition (Susanne Stone Marshall, et al. v. Bernard L. Madoff, et al., No. 15 mc. 56, S.D. N.Y.; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61482).
COVINGTON, Ky. - A federal judge in Kentucky on May 12 denied a lead plaintiff's motion to alter or amend its judgment or grant leave to amended a complaint in a securities class action lawsuit, ruling that amendment is not proper because the lead plaintiff failed to formally request leave to amend and because the judgment was not a "clear error" (Satish Doshi, et al. v. General Cable Corp., No. 14-22, W.D. Ky.; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61686).
ATLANTA - A federal district court judge did not err in dismissing a securities class action lawsuit because, despite having numerous opportunities to amend their complaint, the lead plaintiffs still failed to properly plead loss causation, a divided 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel ruled May 11 (Miklen Sapssov, et al. v. Health Management Associates Inc., et al., No. 14-12838, 11th Cir.; 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 7731).
NEW YORK - Nationwide restaurant/entertainment chain Dave & Buster's Inc. violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by reducing the hours of its work force in 2013 in order to avoid the costs associated with providing health insurance to its full-time employees in compliance with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), an employee alleges in a class action complaint filed May 8 in federal court in New York (Maria De Lourdes Parra Marin v. Dave & Buster's, Inc., et al., No. 15 CV 3608, S.D. N.Y.).
NEW YORK - A federal bankruptcy court did not err in preventing investors from filing a second amended complaint in a lawsuit connected to Bernard L. Madoff's massive Ponzi scheme, because investors' claims were duplicative and derivative of a suit already brought by Madoff's liquidation trustee, a New York federal judge ruled May 11 (In re Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC, [Adele Fox, et al. v. Irving H. Picard, et al.], No. 14-6790, S.D. N.Y.; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61490).
PHILADELPHIA - The Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled May 8 that the "catalyst theory" of recovery of attorney fees is available under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and that judicial action is not required under that theory in order to establish some degree of success on the merits (Christopher Templin, et al. v. Independence Blue Cross, et al., No. 13-4493, 3rd Cir.; 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 7624).