ERISA & Employee Benefits Litigation

Representative Matters

• Conkright v. Frommert, 130 S.Ct. 1640 (2010).  In a case in which we began representing the Xerox pension plan following an adverse decision in the Second Circuit, we persuaded the Supreme Court that the lower courts erred in refusing to give deference to the plan administrator's reasonable interpretation of the plan, despite a prior mistaken interpretation adopted in good faith.  The Court’s ruling in favor of the Xerox Corporation pension plan and the plan’s administrator has implications for many other ERISA plans.  Covington secured the victory despite vigorous opposition from the Solicitor General, the Department of Labor, and the Internal Revenue Service.
• Kennedy v. Plan Administrator for DuPont Savings & Investment Plan, 129 S. Ct. 865 (2009).  Together with co-counsel, we represented DuPont in the Supreme Court of the United States, securing a unanimous decision in favor of the DuPont Savings and Investment Plan.  The Court held that DuPont’s plan administrator “did its statutory ERISA duty” when it paid deceased worker William Kennedy’s retirement benefits to his ex-wife, whom he had named as his beneficiary, even though his divorce decree stated that his wife gave up any interest in the account.  The decision is an important victory for benefit plan administrators because plan administrators may now rely on the beneficiary designations that follow the plan’s terms.
• LaRue v. DeWolff, Boberg & Assocs., Inc., 128 S. Ct. 1020 (2008) (counsel for amicus).  The U.S. Supreme Court held that a participant stated a colorable ERISA fiduciary breach claim for losses stemming from the alleged failure to implement investment directions for his 401(k) plan account.  In a concurring opinion, Chief Justice Roberts cited our amicus brief for The ERISA Industry Committee in stating that such actions might need to be brought as benefits denial claims and subjected to exhaustion of administrative remedies.
• Harris Trust and Savings Bank v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., 530 U.S. 238 (2000).  The Supreme Court reversed summary judgment against our client Harris Trust and held that ERISA permitted a fiduciary to sue a non-fiduciary party in interest that had participated in a prohibited transaction.
• In re Schering Plough Corp. ERISA Litig., 2009 WL 4893649 (3d Cir. Dec. 21, 2009).  The Third Circuit vacated a district court's certification of a class of participants in a "stock drop" lawsuit against our client Schering Plough that alleges breach of fiduciary duty for imprudent retention of a company stock fund in a 401(k) plan.
• Taylor v. United Technologies Corp., 2009 WL 4255159 (2d Cir. Dec. 1, 2009), aff’g 2009 WL 535779, 46 Empl. Ben. Cas. (BNA) 1935 (D. Conn. Mar. 3, 2009).  The Second Circuit affirmed the summary judgment entered in favor of our client United Technologies in a 401(k) plan expense class action lawsuit.  The court upheld the rejection of all of plaintiffs’ claims concerning a variety of fiduciary decisions over more than a decade, for which plaintiffs had calculated alleged damages of $230 million.
• Hirt v. The Equitable Retirement Plan, 533 F.3d 102 (2d Cir. 2008).  For Verizon, in a case argued in tandem with a similar claim against Equitable, we secured the first favorable ruling in the Second Circuit on claims that cash balance plans violate the age discrimination provision of ERISA.
• Miller v. Xerox Corp. Ret. Income Guar. Plan, 464 F.3d 871 (9th Cir. 2006) (amended panel opinion), cert. denied (2007).  In a case in which we began representing the defendants following an unfavorable ruling by the Ninth Circuit, we persuaded the panel to withdraw its prior decision (447 F.3d 728) and substitute a substantially less onerous ruling concerning benefit offsets made by the defendant pension plan.

Accolades

• Legal 500 US, Labor and Employment - ERISA Litigation (2012)