Home » Publications »
ESOP and 401(k) Plan Employer Stock Litigation Review 1990-2016
by Corey Rosen
This is the print version, and shipping charges apply. It also is available in a digital version with no shipping charges.
$75.00 for NCEO members; $150.00 for nonmembers
A 20% quantity discount will be applied if you are a member (or join now) and order 10 or more of this publication. If you need to order more than the maximum number in the drop-down list below, change the quantity once you have added it to your shopping cart.
If you aren't already a member, we encourage you to join (only $90 for 12 months) when ordering this to get the $75 member price; you can choose this as an option during checkout.
You also may be interested in our related publication ESOP Regulatory Rulings 1990-2016, which provides a summary of rulings and regulations on ESOPs and related plans.
Format: Perfect-bound book, 74 pages
Dimensions: 8.5 x 11 inches
Edition: 1st (August 2016)
Status: In stock
- Special Note on the Presumption of Prudence Issue
- Summary of ESOP Case Decisions
- ESOP Cases
- Claims Against Providers
- Deferral of Gains Issues
- Disclosure of Information
- Employment Rights and Plan Eligibility Issues
- ESOPs as a Takeover Defense
- Executive Compensation
- Indemnification and Insurance
- Lenders as Fiduciaries
- Management of Plan Assets: General
- Management of Plan Assets: "Stock Drop" Cases (Including Presumption of Prudence)
- Party-in-Interest Definitions
- Plan Qualification
- Qualification for Set-Asides
- S Corporation Anti-Abuse Rules
- Securities Law Issues Other Than Disclosure
- Standard of Prudence After the 2014 Fifth Third Case
- State Law Claims
- Voting, Tendering Rights, and ESOP Governance Rights
- Who Is a Fiduciary?
- 401(k) Cases
- Claims Against Providers
- Issues with Offering and Holding Company Stock Other than Presumption of Prudence
- Presumption of Prudence Issues
- Right to Jury Trial
- Securities Law and Required Disclosure Issues: Disclosure May Be Required
- Securities Law and Required Disclosure Issues: Disclosure May Not Be Required
- Standard of Prudence After the 2015 Dudenhoeffer Case
- Standing Affirmed for Participants
- Standing Not Affirmed for Participants
- Other Standing and Class Certification Issues
- Who Is a Fiduciary?
- Appendix: What the Supreme Court's Dudenhoeffer Decision Means for ESOPs
- Key Points
- Standard of Prudence
- Effect on ESOPs
From "Distribution"Del Rosario v. King & Prince Seafood Corp, No. 10-11967 (11th Cir. June 28, 2011, unpublished): An appeals court upheld the lower court's ruling that a change in distribution policy to provide for earlier payout did not violate ERISA and that plan communications to employees in the second of two contested periods also was not misleading. It remanded the case, however, over whether under the Amara doctrine, employees could make individual 502(a)(3) claims over whether they had been misled by plan communications in the first period. The case was settled out of court in 2012.
Beaston v. Sundt Companies, et al., No. 4:2009cv00551 (D. Ariz. Aug. 15, 2011): A district court rejected an argument that a plan committee's decision to reduce the time for stock distributions from two years to one year was a fiduciary violation. The court ruled the plan language allowed the plan committee discretion over these rules.
Perez v. Cal. Pac. Bank, No. 3:13-cv-03792-JD (N.D. Cal. July 20, 2015): A district court ruled that California Pacific Bank failed to properly distribute assets upon the termination of its ESOP. The DOL alleged, and the court agreed, that the bank had failed to pay out the participants in a timely fashion. The bank also moved plan assets into a non-interest-bearing account pending distribution, but the court said questions of fact remained about whether such a transfer was permissible.
Harper v. Conco ESOP Trs., No. 3:16-CV-00125-JHM (W.D. Ky. July 7, 2016). A district court ruled that employees of the bankrupt company Conco could not sell their stock for at least three years. The court affirmed a bankruptcy court's ruling that was meant to give the company an opportunity to reorganize. Employees had also sued fiduciaries over a failure even to consider an offer to buy the company for $2 million when the company's value was zero. Employees wanted to reopen the bankruptcy case, but the bankruptcy court ruled that the reorganization plan prohibited a sale. The plan specified that Conco could not repurchase the shares from employees before 2019.
From "Employment Rights and Plan Eligibility Issues"Momchilov v. McIlvaine Trucking, No. 5:09CV1322 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 24, 2010): A district court denied a motion for summary judgment for the defendants and allowed the plaintiff to proceed with a claim that she was wrongfully discharged two weeks after requesting copies of ESOP plan documents.
Malcolm v. Trilithic, Inc., No. 1:13-cv-00073-SEB-DKL (S.D. Ind. Mar. 31, 2014): A court ruled that an executive who had been fired over allegations about abusive transactions in an ESOP could not contest his firing under ERISA because he failed to state sufficient facts.
Sexton v. Panel Processing, Inc., No. 13-1604 (6th Cir. May 9, 2014): A circuit court ruled that a single e-mail from an ESOP participant and plan trustee to the company's board chairman threatening to report violations of ERISA by the chairman in his handling of board elections did not give rise to an anti-retaliation claim under Section 510 of ERISA.