Tenth Circuit rules that DOL may seek equitable relief under ERISA s. 502(a)(5)
Article Abstract:
The US Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit reversed the lower court's summary judgment in Reich v. Stangl and found that the Secretary of Labor does have the ability to bring an equitable action against a nonfiduciary party in interest. The Secretary brought an action under section 502(a)(5) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act to seek restitution for a loan from a retirement plan that constituted a prohibited transaction. The party that benefitted from the loan was not a plan fiduciary but was a party in interest because of business dealings with a trustee.
Publication Name: Tax Management Compensation Planning Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0747-8607
Year: 1996
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
What relief is available as an equitable remedy under section 502(a)(3) of ERISA?
Article Abstract:
ERISA's section 502(a)(3) authorizes 'appropriate equitable relief' in breach of fiduciary duty suits brought by plan participants. The US Supreme Court interpreted the clause to mean relief available in mid-18th century equity courts. Injunctive and declaratory relief involve few problems, but accounting for profits or constructive trust forms of restitution can pose problems when plaintiffs attempt to obtain otherwise unavailable monetary relief by calling a legal action equitable.
Publication Name: Tax Management Compensation Planning Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0747-8607
Year: 1997
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
The evolution of ERISA litigation - recent interpretations under s. 510
Article Abstract:
ERISA s. 510, which prohibits employers from interfering with the rights of plan participants or beneficiaries, may be the basis for an increasing number of lawsuits since the literal statutory language now seems to be the governing interpretation. Court reinterpretations have gradually favored litigants, removing barriers that arose from earlier interpretations of the broad language of the section. The impact of three recent interpretive cases is analyzed.
Publication Name: Tax Management Compensation Planning Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0747-8607
Year: 1995
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
- Abstracts: Hidden danger; unwary attorneys may face liability under ERISA. Balancing prudence and risk; under ERISA, pension plan investors must focus on participants' goals
- Abstracts: The dischargeability of marital obligations: three justifications for the repeal of s. 523(a)(15). When an ex-spouse goes bankrupt: new rules help keep financial obligations intact under divorce decrees
- Abstracts: Booth v. Comr. - the Tax Court reins in runaway multiple-employer welfare plans. IRS revokes 1993 PLR on multiple employer rabbi trust funded with employer stock
- Abstracts: Imputed benefit accrual service. Required beginning date for qualified plan distributions. Final separate lines of business regulations
- Abstracts: Does the per se rule in antitrust law remain viable? The U.S. Supreme Court has oscillated in its own application of the doctrine, creating some uncertainty