Benefits Blast

In Cunningham v. Cornell University, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected efforts by plan fiduciary defendants, previously endorsed by several courts of appeals, to require plaintiffs to allege more than the mere existence of a contract with a service provider to withstand early motions to dismiss prohibited transaction claims in excessive fee lawsuits. The decision appears likely to lead to increased litigation, and plan fiduciaries should review their processes and procedures to ensure plans are only paying reasonable fees for necessary services.

Amid a recent resurgence in litigation targeting pension risk transfer (PRT) transactions, plan sponsors and fiduciaries should take extra care in selecting annuity providers to ensure compliance with fiduciary duties. Read on for a summary of recent developments and insights.   

A recent federal court case considered an issue that arises from time to time when employers want to terminate their non-qualified plans: Can the employer terminate the plan and pay out all benefits in a lump sum despite participants’ elections of other forms of benefit?