ERISA Class Action Review – 2025

a particular limitations period, and courts allow participants and plans to contractually agree to a particular limitations period so long as it is reasonable. In 2024, there were several cases that turned on time bar issues. In Baleja, et al. v. Northrop Grumman Space & Mission Systems Corp. Salaried Pension Plan , 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 20878 (9th Cir. Aug. 19, 2024), the plaintiffs filed a putative class action alleging that the defendants failed to sufficiently disclose a pension offset and to describe the effects of the offset. Id. at *2. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, holding that the claims were time barred. Id. at *2-3. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed. Id. at *2. The Ninth Circuit found that the plaintiffs’ claim was timely filed, even though the pension offset was first described to employees in 1985 and the plaintiffs filed their action in 2017. Id. at *2-3. Under the ERISA, the six-year clock for filing a claim where there is no actual knowledge is dated from the “last action” which constituted a breach of violation. Id. at *2. In Baleja , the defendants described the pension offset in several summary plan descriptions, the last of which was issued in 2014. Id. at *3. The Ninth Circuit considered this 2014 description to be the “last action” in the defendants’ “series of allegedly misleading statements” about the pension offset. Id. In Knight, et al. v. IBM , 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62326 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 4, 2024), the plaintiffs brought a putative class action against IBM and its Plan Administration Committee alleging violations of the ERISA’s actuarial equivalence, anti-forfeiture, and joint and survivor annuity requirements. Id. at *2. The complaint also alleged a breach of fiduciary duties for presiding over a plan that did not comply with the ERISA. Id. at *5. The defendants contended that both the statutory claims and the breach of fiduciary duty claim were time-barred. Id. at *7. The court agreed, and accordingly dismissed the plaintiffs’ complaint. Id. at *14-15. With regard to the statutory claims, the court found that the two-year limitation imposed by IBM’s plan was reasonable, and therefore enforceable. Id. at *7-8. Based on the terms of the plan, the limitations period began to run as soon as plaintiffs knew or should have known the material facts upon which their action would be based, regardless of whether the plaintiffs were aware of the legal theory underlying their claims. Id. at *8-9. As a result, the court concluded that the limitations period began when the plaintiffs received pension projection statements. Id. at *12. Because they received these statements more than two years before filing the action, the court concluded their statutory claims were time-barred. Id. The breach of fiduciary duty claim turned on the application of the actual knowledge standard. Id. at *12-13. The court had previously held that it could infer a participant’s knowledge of an alleged fiduciary breach involving use of unreasonable actuarial assumptions once that participant received his or her first pension payment. See Masten v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company Employee Benefits Committee , 543 F. Supp. 3d 25, 38 (S.D.N.Y. 2021). In this case, the plaintiffs had even more knowledge, since their pension projection statements disclosed all the facts relevant to their claim of fiduciary breach. Knight , 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62326, at *14. Because they received these statements more than three years before filing this action, the court concluded their breach of fiduciary duty claim was time-barred. Id. In Appvion, Inc. Retirement Saving & Employee Stock Ownership Plan, et al. v. Buth , 99 F.4th 928 (7th Cir. 2024), the Seventh Circuit did a deep dive into the question of when a defendant’s acts of concealment can extend the clock for filing a claim. That case revolved around the sale of Appvion, a paper company that specialized in products that are considered outdated in the digital age, namely carbonless and thermal paper. Id. at 937. In the late 1990’s, Appvion’s parent company attempted to sell the operation, but struggled to find a buyer. The parent company offered a contingent fee of up to 10% if Appvion’s officers could sell the company for $700 million. Id. The officers determined that Appvion’s employees might be interested in purchasing the company, and they enlisted a banking firm to arrive at a valuation. Id. at 938. The firm valued the company at over $800 million, and the employees bought the company and created an employee stock ownership plan (ESOP) to serve as the fiduciary for the employee/new owners’ investments. Id. Ultimately, the company went bankrupt, and the ESOP sued numerous defendants, alleging that they had fraudulently inflated the value of the company. Id. at 937. The district court dismissed the complaint, holding that the claims were time-barred. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit affirmed in part, holding that where the acts constituting the alleged concealment are the same acts that constitute the underlying injury for which a plaintiff is suing, the exception to the statute of limitations does not apply. Id. at 942. However, the Seventh Circuit allowed some claims that were not time-

Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online