In 2016, Inland Fresh Seafood Corporation of America established an employee stock ownership plan (ESOP), a type of defined contribution employee benefit plan. The ESOP then purchased 100% of Inland Fresh stock from Inland Fresh’s former shareholders.
Since the ESOP was founded, it has provided substantial benefits to Inland Fresh’s employee participants.
In November 2022, four former Inland Fresh employees filed an Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) class action complaint against Inland Fresh, a number of its executives, its outside counsel, the ESOP Committee and the ESOP’s independent trustee.
The complaint alleged that the defendants breached their ERISA fiduciary duties, engaged in transactions prohibited by ERISA and ultimately caused the ESOP to pay more than fair market value for Inland Fresh stock during the initial transaction.
Aspiring employment lawyers ask questions of their mentors. Try this one: Did you ever go to trial on a wage and hour class action?
The answers—ranging from “no” to “almost but …” and “rarely” to “once”—reveal an important truth: Employment lawyers handling class actions better know the inner workings of getting class settlements approved.
Writing for Law360, McDermott partner Christopher Braham examines how approval triggers play a role in employment class actions.
At the 36th Annual ISCEBS Symposium, Todd Solomon presented best practices for plan fiduciaries to avoid 401(k) plan and 403(b) plan class action lawsuits. Todd discussed fiduciary responsibilities under ERISA as well as potential consequences of breaching fiduciary responsibilities. He highlighted notable cases brought against plan fiduciaries, including those that allege excess plan fees. Todd discussed the need for rigorous monitoring and documentation of the review process.
As previously described in this blog earlier this year, a divided Seventh Circuit panel reversed summary judgment in favor of Kraft Foods Global, Inc. in a class action involving allegedly excessive fees in the Kraft 401(k) plan. Shortly thereafter, Kraft petitioned for rehearing of the case by the entire Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals en banc. Further, a “friend of the court” brief submitted jointly by The ERISA Industry Committee (ERIC), the American Benefits Council (ABC), the Profit Sharing/401k Council of America (PSCA), and U.S. Chamber of Commerce urged the Seventh Circuit to rehear the case en banc.
However, on May 26, 2011, in a single page opinion, the Seventh Circuit denied Kraft’s motion, noting that no judge in active service for the Seventh Circuit requested a vote on the petition for rehearing en banc and that the original three judge panel voted 2-1 against rehearing the case – the same split as in the panel’s original order reversing summary judgment.
As a result, the Seventh Circuit’s original order reversing summary judgment will likely be the “go-to” cite for plaintiffs’ attorneys seeking to escape summary judgment on excessive fee claims. However, as noted by the dissent in that order, the Seventh Circuit’s decision “will only serve to steer [fiduciaries’] attention toward avoiding litigation instead of managing employee wealth.”
Subscribe
