Posted: 26 Nov 2007 04:50 PM CST
Note: The following argument recap is by Paul Secunda of the University of Mississippi School of Law and Workplace Prof Blog, where this entry is cross-posted. The SCOTUSwiki page for this case, with more links and documents, is here.
As Rick pointed out this past weekend, the highly-anticipated ERISA case of LaRue v. DeWolff, Boberg & Assoc. was argued today in front of the Supreme Court. This is a case which will help define a 401(k) pension plan holder’s right to sue plan administrators for breach of fiduciary duty. More specifically, the case may shine much needed light on the scope of relief available to employees under Sections 502(a)(2) and 502(a)(3) of ERISA.
Below are my initial thoughts on the oral argument today in the case based upon an analysis of the oral transcript. (Full disclosure: I was one of eleven law professors who signed an amicus brief supporting LaRue’s opposition to DeWolff’s motion to dismiss. I hope, however, that this fact does not cloud my analysis of the oral argument).
1. Peter Stris, a law professor at Whittier, went first. He put forward his “straightforward” argument: “The plain meaning of ‘any losses to the plan’ includes any diminution in value of defined contribution plan assets, regardless of the number of participants ultimately affected.” FWIW, that sounds right to me.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario