Tag: fiduciary duty

surgery

Laser Surgery Center to Pay $5 Million Following ERISA Violations

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has reached an agreement with the owner of a Manhattan laser surgery center to pay $5 million to its Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) to resolve violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).

Print
retirement

DOL Sues to Recover Losses to Vermont ESOP

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) is suing the fiduciaries of a Vermont employee stock ownership plan (ESOP) for violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), alleging that First Bankers Trust Services, Inc.’s 2011 purchase of a company on behalf of the ESOP from its two previous owners caused the plan to suffer […]

Print

BP Litigation: Plan Sponsor Not Liable for Employees’ Failure to Inform

Fiduciary status under ERISA “is not an all-or-nothing concept,” according to a recent federal district court ruling that found BP and its North American unit were not liable for their retirement plan employees’ breaches of fiduciary duty. The lawsuit arose from a BP company stock plan available as investment to plan participants that plunged in […]

Print

Fiduciaries Have Ongoing Duty to Monitor, High Court Vacates Tibble

The U.S. Supreme Court on May 18 unanimously vacated a federal appellate court ruling that found that employee retirement plan participants’ claims about fees applied to their plan were time-barred, sending a clear message that plan fiduciaries have an ongoing duty to monitor investments, their expenses and other related claims within that duty’s statute of […]

Print

Supreme Court Ponders Continuing Duty of Prudence Limits in Tibble

On Feb. 24, the first retirement plan “excessive fee” case was heard by the U.S. Supreme Court. It raises the question of how long a fiduciary must monitor its employer-sponsored plan’s investments — or whether that duty can instead be measured at a single point in time. A lower-court ruling had found the ERISA claim […]

Print

Employees required to prove what they didn’t steal

By Kyla Stott-Jess A recent Alberta Court of Appeal case, 581257 Alberta Ltd. v. Aujla, is good news for employers. The court reversed the normal onus of proof, requiring the employees to prove that certain monies they deposited into their bank account were not stolen from their employer.

Print

Biting the Fiduciary Bullet: A Case for Post-Employment Restrictive Covenants

By Kyla Stott-Jess and Devin Crisanti Post-employment restrictions can be tricky to enforce. But if drafted properly, they can be valuable. As one Alberta employer recently discovered in ADM Measurements Ltd. v. Bullet Electric LTD, relying on implied fiduciary duties to do the job of contractual restrictions can be a pricey gamble. Background The employer, […]

Print