Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Claim of Breach of Fiduciary Duty Under ERISA Fails
In Ladouceur v. Credit Lyonnais, 07-4040-cv, U.S. Court Of Appeals, Second Circuit, Sept. 30, 2009, plaintiffs were employed by a Credit Lyonnais subsidiary absorbed by its corporate parent in 2001. They alleged that Credit Lyonnais and its human resources director orally misrepresented the merger's effect on plaintiffs' pension benefits plan, which was governed by ERISA. The district court summarily dismissed their allegations of promissory estoppel and breach of fiduciary duty based on the oral misrepresentations. On appeal, plaintiffs argued that an oral representation was enough to show a breach of fiduciary duty claim based on a purported alteration of a benefits plan governed by ERISA. The panel affirmed judgment rejecting plaintiffs' assertion that the district court erred in dismissing “for lack of any writing” their claim for breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA. The panel concluded that because a statement cannot effect a change in an ERISA plan, that statement cannot be given effect by re-characterizing it as a breach of fiduciary duty. It observed that to give such effect to an oral statement would undermine ERISA's framework ensuring that ERISA plans be governed by written documents and dilute the protection conferred by the writing requirement.
Claim of Breach of Fiduciary Duty Under ERISA Fails
In Ladouceur v. Credit Lyonnais, 07-4040-cv, U.S. Court Of Appeals, Second Circuit, Sept. 30, 2009, plaintiffs were employed by a Credit Lyonnais subsidiary absorbed by its corporate parent in 2001. They alleged that Credit Lyonnais and its human resources director orally misrepresented the merger's effect on plaintiffs' pension benefits plan, which was governed by ERISA. The district court summarily dismissed their allegations of promissory estoppel and breach of fiduciary duty based on the oral misrepresentations. On appeal, plaintiffs argued that an oral representation was enough to show a breach of fiduciary duty claim based on a purported alteration of a benefits plan governed by ERISA. The panel affirmed judgment rejecting plaintiffs' assertion that the district court erred in dismissing “for lack of any writing” their claim for breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA. The panel concluded that because a statement cannot effect a change in an ERISA plan, that statement cannot be given effect by re-characterizing it as a breach of fiduciary duty. It observed that to give such effect to an oral statement would undermine ERISA's framework ensuring that ERISA plans be governed by written documents and dilute the protection conferred by the writing requirement.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?