Rick Pearl, Author at Spotlight on Benefits

Thinking ESOPs: Department of Labor Identifies New Enforcement Priorities

The Employee Benefits Security Administration’s (EBSA) April 2026 Field Assistance Bulletin marks a pivotal change in Department of Labor enforcement for ESOPs. The new guiding principles and enforcement priorities are designed to curb aggressive, unpredictable actions by the DOL, especially around ESOP valuation, and to ensure fair treatment for plan fiduciaries. These changes prioritize targeting only the most serious violations, require advance notice and clarity for regulated parties, and mandate leadership oversight for significant enforcement initiatives. This edition of Thinking ESOPs provides a detailed analysis of EBSA’s historical approach, the impact of these new priorities, and practical takeaways for ESOP stakeholders navigating this evolving regulatory landscape.

Continue reading “Thinking ESOPs: Department of Labor Identifies New Enforcement Priorities”

Sixth Circuit Rejects Surcharge as a Remedy Under § 502(a)(3)

In this Spotlight on Benefits post, we discuss the nature of equitable relief under ERISA and another federal circuit court decision rejecting surcharge as an available equitable remedy.

As background, ERISA contains an exclusive civil enforcement provision that sets forth the only claims and forms of relief available to ERISA plaintiffs. One of those claims is under ERISA § 502(a)(3), which authorizes, among other things, a claim for appropriate “equitable relief” to remedy a violation of ERISA or an ERISA plan. ERISA does not define “equitable relief,” and that phrase can have different meanings depending on the context.

Continue reading “Sixth Circuit Rejects Surcharge as a Remedy Under § 502(a)(3)”

Second Circuit Adopts “Meaningful Benchmark” Pleading Standard in ERISA Cases

In Singh v. Deloitte LLP, et al., No. 23-1108, 2024 WL 5049345 (2d Cir. Dec. 10, 2024), the Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a district court’s dismissal of a complaint alleging that plan fiduciaries caused an ERISA-governed 401(k) plan to pay excessive recordkeeping fees. This article discusses the Singh case and its impact on excessive-fee claims.

As more and more employers face lawsuits alleging that their 401(k) plans paid excessive recordkeeping and administrative fees, courts continue to grapple with the standard required for plaintiffs to plead plausible claims that survive motions to dismiss. The Second Circuit is the most recent Court of Appeals to adopt the “meaningful benchmark” pleading standard for claims alleging excessive recordkeeping or administrative fees, and it is among the most stringent pleading standards yet.

Continue reading “Second Circuit Adopts “Meaningful Benchmark” Pleading Standard in ERISA Cases”

Eleventh Circuit Holds That Burden of Proof of Loss Causation is on Plaintiffs in ERISA Actions

In an August 2, 2024, decision in Pizarro v. The Home Depot, Inc., No. 22-13643 (11th Cir. Aug. 2, 2024), the Eleventh Circuit reaffirmed its position — and the position of the majority of federal circuit courts to address the issue — on the burden of proving loss causation for purposes of an ERISA claim for fiduciary breach. Loss causation is an element of a plaintiff’s claim for damages because of a breach of fiduciary duty, and the plaintiff bears the burden of proving causation of loss.

Pizarro involves claims by a putative class of Home Depot employees (Plaintiffs) who participated in Home Depot’s 401(k) plan. Plaintiffs alleged that the plan had excessive fees and imprudent investment options, but the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia granted summary judgment in Home Depot’s favor because Plaintiffs could not prove that they suffered any losses caused by a fiduciary’s alleged breach. To make such a showing, Plaintiffs would have to prove that a hypothetical “prudent” fiduciary would have not made the same choices that the defendants made. The District Court held that Home Depot’s investment decisions were “objectively prudent,” whether or not those decisions resulted from the right process, and thus Plaintiffs could not prove damages.

Continue reading “Eleventh Circuit Holds That Burden of Proof of Loss Causation is on Plaintiffs in ERISA Actions”

When One Door Closes, Another Opens… Maybe. Fourth Circuit Holds That Surcharge Is Not Equitable Relief Available Under ERISA But Paves the way for Unjust Enrichment Claims

In an ERISA case for wrongful denial of health insurance benefits, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit addressed when a plaintiff may recover monetary relief under §§ 502(a)(1)(B) and (a)(3). The Fourth Circuit unsurprisingly held that ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B) limits recovery to benefits due under the terms of a plan, and a plaintiff cannot recover the cost of a denied surgery because the cost is not a “benefit” due; coverage for the cost, and payment to the provider, is the benefit. Unless a plaintiff pays the bill first, the plaintiff cannot recover the cost from an insurer.

The court’s discussion of the § 502(a)(3) claim was not so straight-forward, however, and ultimately much more important. The Fourth Circuit held that § 502(a)(3), which expressly permits only “appropriate equitable relief,” does allow some forms of monetary relief (traditionally thought of as legal, and not equitable), but prohibits others.

Continue reading “When One Door Closes, Another Opens… Maybe. Fourth Circuit Holds That Surcharge Is Not Equitable Relief Available Under ERISA But Paves the way for Unjust Enrichment Claims”

Thinking ESOPs: Fourth Circuit Narrows Equitable Relief Under ERISA

In Rose v. PSA Airlines, Inc., 80 F.4th 488 (4th Cir. 2023), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that ERISA § 502(a)(3), which permits a claim for “other appropriate equitable relief,” does not allow claims to recover money from a defendant’s general assets. This alert discusses the Rose decision and its potential impact on ESOP cases.

Continue reading “Thinking ESOPs: Fourth Circuit Narrows Equitable Relief Under ERISA”

Thinking ESOPs: Courts Desperately Need Contextual Clues in Disputes Over Enforceability of Arbitration Provisions

Enforcement of an ERISA plan’s arbitration provision has become a hotly litigated issue. Plaintiffs and courts often raise two objections to arbitration provisions in ERISA plans, including ESOPs. The first is whether participants or the plan itself consented to the arbitration provision. The second is whether class-action waiver language, which requires individualized arbitration, is enforceable under ERISA.

There have been several important ERISA arbitration decisions in recent years, including many involving ESOPs. Interestingly, these decisions suggest that courts are struggling with the same statutory-interpretation problems that courts struggle with when addressing a number of issues raised by ESOP litigation. Many key ERISA provisions are difficult, if not impossible, to interpret based solely on their express language. This is a real problem in ESOP litigation because many disputes turn on a court’s interpretation of the opaque ERISA provisions that are implicated by the disputes.

Continue reading “Thinking ESOPs: Courts Desperately Need Contextual Clues in Disputes Over Enforceability of Arbitration Provisions”

ERISA Litigation Roundup: SCOTUS Vacates and Remands Seventh Circuit’s 403(b) Decision in Northwestern

Last week, the Supreme Court issued its anticipated ruling in the ERISA fiduciary-breach class action Hughes v. Northwestern. In its unanimous decision, the Court vacated the Seventh Circuit’s dismissal of the case and sent the case back to the lower court for further review. The narrow decision may boost plaintiffs in similar ERISA cases involving challenges to retirement plan fees and investment options, but it also offers hope to defendants.

Continue reading “ERISA Litigation Roundup: SCOTUS Vacates and Remands Seventh Circuit’s 403(b) Decision in Northwestern”

Department of Labor Issues New Guidance on Private Equity Investments in Individual Account Plans

On December 21, 2021, the Department of Labor (DOL) issued additional guidance on the use of private equity investments in certain retirement plans, warning that most plan fiduciaries will not have enough experience to adequately evaluate such investments.

The DOL’s guidance relates to a June 3, 2020 “information letter” (which is a non-binding statement) issued by the Employee Benefits Security Administration of the DOL . In that information letter, the DOL addressed private equity investments in “designated investment alternatives” (or DIAs) offered to participants in individual account plans, like 401(k) plans, considered whether ERISA prohibits offering certain private equity investments to participants in individual account plans.

Continue reading “Department of Labor Issues New Guidance on Private Equity Investments in Individual Account Plans”

Thinking ESOPs: Sixth Circuit Enforces ERISA Exclusion in ESOP Trustee’s Insurance Policy

A recent Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals decision serves as a warning to policyholders: read your entire policy, understand each provision and confirm that the policy language accurately reflects your understanding of the coverage you purchased.

Navigating an insurance policy is not easy. A policy’s declarations, general terms, insuring agreements, definitions, exclusions, conditions and endorsements collectively set forth the scope of the policy’s coverage. With very rare exceptions, both the insurer and the policyholder will be bound by the language found in the policy. This is true even if the language in the policy is unfavorable to the policyholder and does not cover risks the policyholder was attempting to mitigate through insurance.

Continue reading “Thinking ESOPs: Sixth Circuit Enforces ERISA Exclusion in ESOP Trustee’s Insurance Policy”