Search for: "LARU, LIMITED"
Results 1 - 20
of 57
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
30 Jan 2008, 7:22 am
Tackling the same arguments that were presented to the Supreme Court in LaRue, the Sixth Circuit concluded that individual participants could recover on their own behalf for losses solely to their accounts in the plan, and that breach of fiduciary duty claims under ERISA are not limited to actions brought on behalf of the plan as a whole or for recovery benefiting the entire class of plan participants as a whole. [read post]
28 Nov 2007, 6:50 am
However, I don’t expect, both for reasons related to the historically limited remedial reach of ERISA and the philosophy of various justices, that theory of liability and right of recovery to be unconstrained or left as simple as error by fiduciary plus loss to one account =s liability. [read post]
21 Nov 2007, 7:46 am
The respondents reply, quite correctly, that ERISA provides limited remedies and some losses are simply - and quite intentionally under the terms of the statute - not actionable; to the respondents, LaRue’s loss, which stemmed from the administrator not following his specific investment instructions related to his specific account, is exactly such a non-remediable event under ERISA. [read post]
13 May 2008, 1:20 pm
The Supreme Court’s decision in LaRue, and the manner in which the opening of liability, at least in theory, by the case is best met by that hoary chestnut, best practices. [read post]
7 Nov 2008, 12:36 pm
Accordingly, while the LaRue decision allows for individuals to bring ERISA actions, the cost of funding the actions on an individual basis is likely to significantly limit the number of individual claims ultimately brought. [read post]
12 Dec 2007, 6:02 am
Are those of us who treat ERISA as specifically and intentionally limited in this way right about that? [read post]
22 Feb 2008, 2:41 am
Until the decision in LaRue v. [read post]
27 Feb 2008, 4:58 am
Russell in 1985, a participant's ability to recover for individual losses due toan alleged fiduciary breach has been significantly limited. [read post]
2 Jan 2023, 9:05 am
Rick LaRue has written this article for ELJ. [read post]
21 Feb 2008, 4:06 pm
The lower federal courts held that LaRue's claims failed as a matter of law, ruling that LaRue could not sue for a breach of fiduciary duty because ERISA limits such claims to situations where the "plan as a whole" was injured.The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that LaRue's lawsuit could proceed. [read post]
27 Nov 2007, 9:40 am
On Monday, the Supreme Court heard a case (LaRue v. [read post]
24 Feb 2008, 1:41 am
It didn't get quite the attention that did the landmark Supreme Court ruling in LaRue v. [read post]
30 Nov 2007, 9:48 am
You know, people often get bogged down when talking about ERISA with the limitations of the statute and the protections it provides on the individual level; that is, to an extent, what the hullabaloo about the LaRue case is about, as it concerns the question of whether investment losses in a 401(k) plan are actionable if they only injure an individual, or instead only if they have a macro effect on the plan as a whole. [read post]
18 Mar 2011, 6:37 am
LaRue appealed. [read post]
6 Mar 2008, 10:20 am
In LaRue v. [read post]
30 Nov 2007, 7:43 am
The issue involves the limits placed on lawsuits under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), which regulates private sector retirement plans and protects pension fund money from misappropriation. [read post]
20 Feb 2008, 7:56 pm
The court's majority opinion is based in part of the fact that the retirement "landscape has changed" in the 23 years since ERISA remedies were limited in Russell 23 years ago. [read post]
26 Feb 2018, 7:01 am
Frank LaRue, the former U.N. [read post]
26 Feb 2008, 9:17 pm
Then the plurality distinguished the Russell “entire plan” statement, limiting that statement’s applicability to defined benefit plans — traditional pension plans in which the amount an individual receives is based on a set formula, not on a fund’s investment performance. [read post]
17 Dec 2013, 7:09 am
One would think that a simple ruling on a statute of limitations issue would not have that same effect, but I suspect one would be wrong, as the Workplace Prof notes in this excellent post on the decision, in which he comments on the potential future ramifications of the decision beyond simply its application to statutes of limitations. [read post]
