ERISA Litigation

Overview

Alston & Bird’s ERISA litigation attorneys were among the first to dedicate their practices to ERISA, employee benefits, and related disputes. Our team practices nationwide and includes attorneys who are not only comprehensively trained in ERISA but also have extensive experience as litigators, offering you the highest level of professionalism and expertise.

Our attorneys have extraordinary experience. We defend employer/plan sponsor clients on a wide range of complex class action matters, including those involving 401(k)/403(b) plan investments and fees, employer stock claims, defined benefit claims, executive compensation claims, and health plan claims (including mental health parity and tobacco surcharge claims).

We are also the only major law firm in the country to have two practicing lawyers who are also actuaries (a Fellow and an Associate of the Society of Actuaries) within the ERISA litigation team. We deliver a blend of legal and actuarial expertise to effectively represent you in defined benefit plan funding, actuarial equivalence, and actuarial malpractice disputes.

Experience

• Handling four of the first wave of lawsuits filed challenging the use of certain actuarial equivalence factors used to calculate benefits in defined benefit pension plans. Herndon v. Huntington Ingalls Industries Inc. (E.D. Va.); Smith v. Rockwell Automation Inc. (E.D. Wis.); Berube v. Rockwell Automation Inc. (E.D. Wis.); Brown v. UPS (N.D. Ga.).
• Represented Insperity Inc., a professional employer organization, in a putative class action alleging excessive recordkeeping fees and imprudent investment options in a 401(k) plan offered to its client-employers. The plaintiffs and Reliance Trust Company settled this case post-trial, resulting in a complete dismissal and release of all claims against the Insperity defendants with no monetary or nonmonetary contribution from the Insperity defendants. Pledger v. Insperity, et al. (N.D. Ga.).
• Represented Brown University in a putative class action alleging excessive recordkeeping fees and imprudent investment options in two 403(b) plans offered to faculty and staff of the university. The settlement terms in this matter are the most favorable to defendants in any similar matter thus far. Short v. Brown University (D.R.I.).
• Represented Governor Rick Scott, Attorney General Pam Bondi, Chief Financial Officer Jeff Atwater, and other Florida state government officials sued by numerous plaintiffs regarding legislative changes to the Florida Retirement System, the state government’s pension system, alleging illegal cutbacks and constitutional violations. We represented the defense through the trial and subsequent appeals. The Supreme Court of Florida ruled in favor of our clients and upheld the 2011 pension reform law, closing a $1 billion-per-year gap in the budget for the state of Florida. Scott v. Williams (Fla.).
• Represented Norton Healthcare in a putative class action alleging that the defendants breached ERISA fiduciary duties by not choosing the lowest-cost share classes for mutual funds available in Norton’s 403(b) plan by choosing a stable-value fund as an investment option and by paying asset-based fees for administrative services. Disselkamp, et al. v. Norton Healthcare, et al. (W.D. Ky.).
• Defended four NBA teams (Spurs, Nuggets, Nets, and Pacers) that were previously members of the American Basketball Association (ABA) and the ABA Plan in a putative class action related to participant claims for breach of fiduciary duty and reporting and disclosure violations. The claims were settled on very favorable terms. Calvin, et al. v. San Antonio Spurs L.L.C., et al., (W.D. Tex.).
• Represented Dell and various individual fiduciaries of the Dell defined contribution plan in a matter involving Dell stock in the plan. The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and affirmed its decision after the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. Camera v. Dell Inc., et al., (W.D. Tex.).
• Prevailed on a motion for summary judgment in a dispute brought by a former American Basketball Association player regarding claims for pension benefits under the American Basketball Association Players’ Retirement Plan. Gilmore v. American Basketball Association Players’ Retirement Plan (M.D. Fla.).
• Represented an American multinational finance and insurance corporation and various affiliates in a putative class action alleging ERISA breaches of fiduciary duty for a trustee-directed defined contribution plan, including excessive fees. We prevailed on partial summary judgment, defeating the plaintiffs’ prohibited transaction claims. The case settled during expert discovery. Goldenberg v. Indel Inc., (D.N.J.). 
• Representing a multinational insurance and health care company in various disputes with out-of-network providers across the country claiming entitlement to benefits based on patient assignments and related counterclaims for overpayments, and billing fraud.
• Representing OptumRx in multiple consumer class actions alleging RICO, ERISA, and state consumer protection and common-law claims stemming from an alleged pricing scheme in which drug manufacturers are accused of inflating diabetes-related prescription prices to subsidize the payment of illegal kickbacks to pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs). 
• Represented UnitedHealthcare in a putative ERISA class action alleging improper denial of coverage for the hepatitis C drug Harvoni. These were significant matters for United and received national attention because the cost of a Harvoni treatment regimen for a single insured is approximately $100,000.
• Convinced the court to deny class certification in a putative ERISA class action against Aetna and our client Optum. The named plaintiff contended that Aetna and Optum violated RICO and ERISA by passing off as medical expenses the administrative fees that Optum charged Aetna. The court held that the proposed class failed Rule 23’s requirements because there was no common proof of injury. Peters v. Aetna Inc., (W.D.N.C.).
• Led the defense of one of the largest actuarial consulting firms in the U.S. The city contended that Buck committed actuarial malpractice in estimating the savings from its 2012 pension reforms. The district court granted our motion for summary judgment on all counts, which the city did not appeal. The City of Providence v. Buck Consultants LLC (D.R.I.). 
• Defended a major airline in a multidistrict class action lawsuit challenging the calculation of lump sum and annuity benefits under its retirement plan. This matter settled on favorable terms while our motion for summary judgment was pending. (Northern District of Georgia).