Justia U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

In this case, several former employees of a seafood company participated in an employee stock ownership plan (ESOP) that was funded by a $92 million loan used to purchase all outstanding company stock from four directors and officers. The plaintiffs alleged that these directors and officers manipulated sales projections and inventory figures to inflate the stock’s valuation, causing the ESOP to overpay by tens of millions of dollars. They further claimed that the plan’s trustee failed to conduct proper due diligence before agreeing to the purchase price. The plaintiffs sought restoration of plan losses, disgorgement of profits, and other equitable relief under ERISA, asserting breaches of fiduciary duty.The plaintiffs filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia without first exhausting the plan’s internal administrative remedies, despite acknowledging that the plan provided such procedures. They argued that exhaustion was not required for their claims and, alternatively, that they were excused from exhausting due to futility and inadequacy of the remedy. The defendants moved to dismiss on exhaustion grounds. The district court granted the motions, finding that Eleventh Circuit precedent required exhaustion for ERISA claims, and rejected the plaintiffs’ arguments for excusal. The court also denied the plaintiffs’ request for a stay to allow exhaustion, but did not specify whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The appellate court held that ERISA plaintiffs must exhaust available administrative remedies before seeking judicial review, including for breach of fiduciary duty claims, and that no valid excuse relieved the plaintiffs of this obligation. The court also remanded the case for the district court to clarify whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice. View "Bolton v. Inland Fresh Seafood Corporation of America, Inc." on Justia Law

NCR Corporation established five “top hat” retirement plans to provide supplemental life annuity benefits to senior executives. Each plan promised participants a fixed monthly payment for life, with language allowing NCR to terminate the plans so long as no action “adversely affected” any participant’s accrued benefits. In 2013, NCR terminated the plans and paid participants lump sums it claimed were actuarially equivalent to the promised annuities, using mortality tables, actuarial calculations, and a 5% discount rate. NCR knew that, statistically, about half of the participants would outlive the lump sums if they continued to withdraw the same monthly benefit, resulting in some participants receiving less than they would have under the original annuity.Participants filed a class-action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, alleging breach of contract and seeking either replacement annuities or sufficient cash to purchase equivalent annuities. The district court certified the class and granted summary judgment for the participants, finding that NCR’s lump-sum payments adversely affected the accrued benefits of at least some participants, in violation of the plan language. The court ordered NCR to pay the difference between the lump sums and the cost of replacement annuities, plus prejudgment and postjudgment interest.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s summary judgment order de novo. The Eleventh Circuit held that the plan language was unambiguous and did not permit NCR to unilaterally replace life annuities with lump sums that reduced the value of accrued benefits for any participant. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment, including the remedy of requiring NCR to pay the cost of replacement annuities and awarding prejudgment interest. View "Hoak v. NCR Corp." on Justia Law

Perfection Bakeries Inc. paid into the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store International Union’s Industry Pension Fund for its employees in Michigan and Indiana. The company later ceased contributions, first in Michigan and then in Indiana, incurring "withdrawal liability" under the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980. The Fund calculated this liability using a four-step formula outlined in 29 U.S.C. § 1381. Perfection Bakeries challenged the Fund's calculation, arguing that a specific calculation was performed at the wrong step.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama reviewed the case. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Fund, holding that the statutory text unambiguously required the credit to be applied as part of the second adjustment step.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's judgment, agreeing that the Fund correctly applied the partial-withdrawal credit at step two of the four-step formula. The court concluded that the statute's language and structure supported the Fund's interpretation, which incorporated all of section 1386, including the credit for previous partial withdrawals, at step two. The court found that this interpretation was consistent with the statutory context and the repeated cross-references to section 1386 throughout the four-step formula. The court rejected Perfection Bakeries' arguments, including the contention that the partial-withdrawal credit should be applied after all four steps, and upheld the Fund's calculation method. View "Perfection Bakeries Inc v. Retail Wholesale & Dept Store International Union" on Justia Law

Laurence Bonday, a former employee of Nalco Company LLC, filed an arbitration demand against Nalco, alleging that the company violated its severance plan by demoting him without offering severance pay. Nalco argued that a court needed to determine the scope of the arbitration agreement before proceeding. However, the arbitrator concluded that Bonday’s severance claim fell outside the scope of the arbitration agreement and awarded him nothing on that claim. Instead, the arbitrator awarded Bonday $129,465.50 on an ERISA discrimination claim that he never raised.Nalco moved to vacate the arbitration award, arguing that the arbitrator exceeded her powers by deciding the scope of the arbitration agreement and awarding relief on a claim Bonday never made. The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida granted Nalco's motion, concluding that the arbitrator exceeded her powers by interpreting the scope of the arbitration agreement and awarding relief on an unraised ERISA discrimination claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court agreed that the arbitrator exceeded her powers by granting relief on an ERISA discrimination claim that Bonday did not submit for arbitration. The court emphasized that an arbitrator can only bind the parties on issues they have agreed to submit and that the arbitrator's decision to award relief on an unsubmitted claim was beyond her authority. The court did not address the district court's first reason for vacating the award, as the second reason was sufficient to affirm the decision. View "Nalco Company LLC v. Bonday" on Justia Law

Ariel Torres, a former Starbucks employee, and Raphyr Lubin, the husband of another former Starbucks employee, filed a putative class action against Starbucks. They alleged that Starbucks sent them deficient health-insurance notices under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), as amended by the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). Starbucks moved to compel arbitration based on employment agreements signed by Torres and Lubin’s wife. Torres agreed to arbitration, but Lubin opposed it, arguing he was not a party to his wife’s employment agreement.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida denied Starbucks’s motion to compel arbitration for Lubin. The court found that Lubin was not a party to his wife’s employment agreement and was not suing to enforce it. Instead, Lubin sought to enforce his own statutory right to an adequate COBRA notice. The court held that no equitable doctrine of Florida contract law required Lubin to arbitrate and that Starbucks waived its argument that Lubin’s rights were derivative of his wife’s rights.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that Lubin, not being a party to the arbitration agreement, could not be compelled to arbitrate. The court also found that the arbitration agreement’s delegation clause did not apply to Lubin, as he was not a party to the agreement. Additionally, the court rejected Starbucks’s arguments based on equitable estoppel, third-party beneficiary doctrine, and the derivative claim theory, concluding that none of these principles required Lubin to arbitrate his claim. The court affirmed the district court’s order denying Starbucks’s motion to compel arbitration. View "Lubin v. Starbucks Corporation" on Justia Law

Eric and Todd Romano, trustees of the Romano Law, PL 401(k) Plan, filed a class action against John Hancock Life Insurance Company. They claimed that John Hancock breached its fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) by not passing through the value of foreign tax credits received from mutual funds to the defined-contribution plans. The Romanos argued that John Hancock should have used these credits to reduce the administrative fees charged to the plans.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida granted summary judgment in favor of John Hancock, concluding that John Hancock was not an ERISA fiduciary regarding the foreign tax credits and did not breach any fiduciary duties. The court also ruled that the Romanos and the class lacked Article III standing because they failed to establish loss causation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that John Hancock was not an ERISA fiduciary concerning the foreign tax credits because these credits were not plan assets. The court explained that the foreign tax credits were a result of John Hancock's ownership of mutual fund shares and were not held in trust for the benefit of the plans. Additionally, the court found that John Hancock did not have discretionary authority over the management or administration of the separate accounts that would make it a fiduciary under ERISA. Consequently, the Romanos' claims for breach of fiduciary duty and engaging in prohibited transactions failed as a matter of law. View "Romano v. John Hancock Life Insurance Company (USA)" on Justia Law

The case involves a class of current and former Home Depot employees who alleged that Home Depot failed to prudently manage its 401(k) retirement plan, resulting in excessive fees and subpar returns. The plaintiffs argued that Home Depot did not adequately monitor the fees charged by the plan’s financial advisor and failed to prudently evaluate four specific investment options, leading to financial losses for the plan participants.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia found that there were genuine disputes of material fact regarding whether Home Depot had complied with its duty of prudence in monitoring plan fees and three of the four challenged funds. However, the court concluded that the plaintiffs had not met their burden of proving loss causation for any of their claims. The court also found no genuine dispute regarding the prudence of Home Depot’s monitoring process for the Stephens Fund and ruled that the plaintiffs had forfeited their requests for equitable relief by not arguing them at the summary judgment stage.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that the plaintiffs bear the burden of proving loss causation in ERISA breach-of-fiduciary-duty claims. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to show that the fees charged by the financial advisors were objectively imprudent, given the size and complexity of Home Depot’s plan. The court also determined that the plaintiffs did not provide sufficient evidence to prove that the four challenged funds were objectively imprudent investments. Additionally, the court agreed with the district court that the plaintiffs had forfeited their claims for equitable relief by not raising them at the summary judgment stage. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Home Depot. View "Pizarro v. The Home Depot, Inc." on Justia Law

The case involves two brothers, Levi and Benjamin Goldfarb, who sought payment of a $500,000 claim under an Accidental Death & Dismemberment insurance policy after their father, Dr. Alexander Goldfarb, died while mountain climbing in Pakistan. The insurer, Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company, denied the claim because the cause of Dr. Goldfarb’s death was unknown, and therefore, his beneficiaries could not show that he died by accident. The Goldfarb brothers challenged the denial in district court under the Employee Retirement Security Act.The district court ruled in favor of the Goldfarbs, stating that Dr. Goldfarb’s death was accidental and that Reliance Standard’s failure to pay the Accidental Death & Dismemberment claim was arbitrary and capricious. The court granted summary judgment to the Goldfarbs and denied Reliance Standard’s cross motion for summary judgment. Reliance Standard appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit disagreed with the district court's decision. The appellate court found that Reliance Standard’s decision that Dr. Goldfarb’s death was not accidental under the insurance policy was supported by reasonable grounds, and the denial of the Goldfarbs’ claim for benefits was not arbitrary and capricious. Therefore, the court reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the Goldfarbs and directed the court to enter judgment in Reliance Standard’s favor. View "Goldfarb v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Co." on Justia Law

Subscribers who bought health insurance filed a class action against Blue Cross, alleging that it violated the Sherman Antitrust Act by restricting the member plans’ ability to compete. At issue is whether the district court abused its discretion in approving a settlement agreement for a multi-district antitrust class action against the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association and its member plans.   The Eleventh Circuit affirmed. The court explained that the self-funded claimants were represented by their own counsel and class representatives in the settlement negotiations and received some compensation from the settlement. Although the settlement agreement’s allocation is facially unequal, it is not facially unfair. Further, the court held that the record supports the conclusion that the self-funded claimants and the fully insured claimants had at least potentially adverse interests. The district court did not abuse its discretion in dividing them into subclasses. Moreover, the court found that the district court also correctly applied the percentage-ofthe-fund doctrine. View "In Re: Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litigation" on Justia Law

Under the Employment Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(1)(B), a plan administrator’s benefits decision is subject to plenary review in federal court unless the administrator is given discretion to determine eligibility or construe the terms of the plan. If the administrator has discretion, a court determines whether its benefits decision was arbitrary and capricious (i.e., whether it lacked a reasonable basis).   In this ERISA case, all parties agree that Lincoln’s denial of long-term disability benefits to Plaintiff triggered de novo review because the plan did not give Lincoln discretion. The district court, acknowledging that its review of the denial was plenary, ruled that Plaintiff could not submit evidence that had not been presented to Lincoln before it denied benefits.   The Eleventh Circuit reversed holding that the district court’s evidentiary ruling constituted error under Eleventh Circuit precedent. The court explained that Lincoln also argues that even under Moon and Kirwan an ERISA plaintiff does not have the unfettered right to introduce new evidence when challenging the denial of benefits under plenary review. However, the court explained it has never mentioned, a showing of good cause to present new evidence in ERISA benefit cases governed by the de novo standard. Further, although Lincoln that under plenary review the administrative record supports the denial of long-term disability benefits to Plaintiff, the court cannot, however, affirm on this basis. Accordingly, the district court erred by not considering Plaintiff's post-denial evidence, and Lincoln does not assert that this error was harmless. View "Virgil Harris v. The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, et al" on Justia Law