The U.S. Supreme Court handed down a decision on Thursday of last week that will impact state-level regulation of pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) by holding that an Arkansas law regulating PBMs was not preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). The decision capped off a busy week in litigation for PBMs as on Monday the Second Circuit held that a business transaction between a PBM and an insurer was not a fiduciary act under ERISA. Although the cases involve distinct issues, they provide some clarity for PBMs on the interplay between business decisions and litigation risks, and some expectation for future regulation at the state-level.
An Illinois district court issued a split decision in a case involving the cybertheft of retirement plan assets, allowing the plan administrator and plan sponsor to be dismissed, but requiring the recordkeeper to defend allegations that it breached its fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Bartnett v. Abbott Laboratories, et. al. (N.D. Illinois, Case No. 1:20-cv-02127) is one of several recent lawsuits filed against plan sponsors and recordkeepers for allowing cyber-thieves to pilfer large distributions from participants’ retirement plan accounts.
Heide Bartnett, a former employee of Abbott Laboratories (Abbott) and participant in Abbott’s 401(k) plan, alleges that a hacker accessed her 401(k) account online, changed the password, added a new bank account and requested a $245,000 distribution from the 401(k) plan’s recordkeeper, Alight Solutions LLC (Alight) to be deposited into the newly added account. The imposter also called Alight several times to ask questions about the distribution.
Ever since the Supreme Court’s decision in Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer, 573 U.S. 409 (2014), plaintiffs’ attorneys have been trying to crack the code for pleading an ERISA duty-of-prudence claim against fiduciaries of employee stock ownership plans (ESOPs) following a drop in the company’s stock price. Those attempts have been largely unsuccessful, with the notable exception of Jander v. Retirement Plans Committee of IBM, 910 F.3d 620 (2d Cir. 2018), vacated and remanded, 140 S. Ct. 592, reinstated, 962 F.3d 85 (2d Cir. 2020). When the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Jander, many ERISA lawyers expected the Court to clarify how a plaintiff could satisfy the Dudenhoeffer standard while still preventing meritless stock-drop claims. But as it often does, the Supreme Court ducked the issue and remanded the case without addressing the merits.
On June 23, 2020, the Department of Labor, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and Department of the Treasury (the Departments) issued new frequently asked questions (FAQs) regarding coverage for COVID-19 testing under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA) and the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act. The FFCRA and the CARES Act generally require employer health plans to provide coverage for COVID-19 testing without imposing any cost sharing (including deductibles, copayments and coinsurance), prior authorization or certain other medical management requirements. Prior FAQs were issued on April 11, 2020 (FAQs Part 42).
The June 23, 2020, FAQs provide additional guidance on health coverage issues for sponsors of group health plans during the COVID-19 pandemic, and are particularly relevant for employers considering return-to-work policies.
In a 5-4 decision in Thole v. U.S. Bank N.A., the Supreme Court found that participants in a defined benefit pension plan lacked Article III standing to sue under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) for alleged mismanagement of that plan, finding the plaintiffs suffered no concrete injury that could be redressed by the lawsuit.
Plaintiffs were former employees of U.S. Bank who, having retired as vested participants in its defined benefit plan, had already begun receiving fixed monthly payments. They filed a class action lawsuit under ERISA in 2013 against the plan sponsor and numerous plan fiduciaries, alleging that defendants breached their fiduciary duties by investing plan funds in the investment managers’ mutual funds, paying excessive management fees, and making imprudent investment decisions that led to $750 million in losses to the plan. The trial court dismissed the lawsuit after the plan, which was underfunded when the suit was filed, became overfunded when the company contributed $311 million to bring the plan into compliance, which the court found mooted plaintiffs’ claims. The Eighth Circuit affirmed on the basis that the overfunded nature of the plan removed plaintiffs’ statutory standing under ERISA to sue.
To address growing concerns over an increase in ERISA litigation claims related to the COVID-19 pandemic, Faegre Drinker’s ERISA litigation team developed the “Preventing an ERISA Litigation Outbreak After COVID-19” alert series to help clients navigate the fiduciary and plan liability issues associated with COVID-19. Part Two of our series examines the potential for fraudulent 401(k) distributions as an unexpected result of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Security Act (CARES Act), and highlights steps plan sponsors and recordkeepers can take to mitigate the risk of these cybercrimes.
View Part One of this series, which provides guidance to assist ESOP fiduciaries in carrying out their duties during the pandemic.
As described in our May 1 blog post, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Employee Benefits Security Administration, the Department of Labor (DOL), and the Internal Revenue Service, the Department of the Treasury (Agencies) recently issued guidance (Extension Guidance) providing emergency relief to employee benefit plans, participants, and beneficiaries for complying with certain deadline and notice requirements under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and the Internal Revenue Code. As part of this guidance, the Agencies released a notification of relief (Joint Notice), which significantly affects administration of all ERISA-governed health, welfare and retirement plans by tolling certain claim-related deadlines throughout the duration of the National Emergency declared by President Trump. This alert, which can be read in its entirety on the Faegre Drinker website, describes the impact of those deadline extensions and provides practical guidance for plan sponsors and fiduciaries to consider in complying with the Joint Notice. For analysis of the Extension Guidance’s implications on retirement plans, see part one of this series of alerts.
With most of the nation on lockdown due to the COVID-19 pandemic, many employers are in the unfortunate position of having to lay off workers or significantly reduce their hours. If these workers also lose employer-sponsored health coverage, they will experience a “qualifying event” under the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (“COBRA”), triggering the requirement to send COBRA election notices describing the employee’s (and spouse’s) right to elect to temporarily stay on their employer’s health plan. In these difficult times, employers should review their notices to ensure they are compliant with COBRA and provide adequate information to employees. Compliance is especially important because COBRA notices have become the subject of a growing trend of class action lawsuits filed by ex-employees alleging that their former employers did not provide sufficient notice of their COBRA rights.
Generally, COBRA requires notices to be drafted in a manner that the average plan participant can understand, and must provide specifics about continuation coverage, such as the contact information for the administrator, how to elect coverage, and how much coverage costs. The DOL has issued model notice letters to help employers meet these requirements.
In its February 26, 2020, unanimous decision in Intel Corporation Investment Policy Committee v. Sulyma, the United States Supreme Court resolved a circuit split regarding what constitutes “actual knowledge” for purposes of triggering ERISA’s three-year statute of limitations for fiduciary breach claims. (ERISA § 413(2); 29 U.S.C. § 1113(2)). The Court found that a fiduciary’s act of disclosing investment information is necessary, but not sufficient to demonstrate that a participant has actual knowledge of the information contained in investment disclosures. Simply put, to “meet § 1113(2)’s ‘actual knowledge’ requirement … the plaintiff must in fact have become aware of that information.”
Under ERISA, a plaintiff must file a lawsuit within six years of the alleged fiduciary breach, or within three years of the date the plaintiff had “actual knowledge” of the breach. (ERISA § 413; 29 U.S.C. § 1113). Sulyma filed his lawsuit challenging the prudence of the Intel 401(k) plan fiduciaries’ investment decisions more than three years, but less than six years, after Intel provided ERISA-mandated disclosures of the investments at issue.
The U.S. Supreme Court is poised for a flurry of ERISA-related activity this year, with four cases on the docket. The first decision out of this quartet came on January 14, 2020, when the Supreme Court remanded the closely watched Retirement Plans Committee of IBM v. Jander to the Second Circuit Court to consider issues that were not fully developed at the court of appeals.
In Jander, the plaintiffs were participants in IBM’s employee stock ownership plan (ESOP), which invested in IBM stock. The plaintiffs alleged that the ESOP fiduciaries’ failure to make early corrective disclosures about an incorrect business valuation was a breach of fiduciary duty that caused the IBM stock to drop significantly.