ACI ERISA Litigation Conference - New York City

I have the pleasure of announcing that Fiduciary Leadership, LLC is one of the sponsors of this recurring educational conference. For a limited time only, I am told that interested parties can register early and receive a discount. Contact Mr. Joseph Gallagher at 212-352-3220, extension 5511, for details.

Besides two full days of interesting and timely presentations, the American Conference Institute conference about ERISA litigation gives attendees a chance to hear different perspectives. Scheduled speakers include investment experts, corporate counsel, defense litigators, plaintiffs' counsel, class action specialists, judges and fiduciary liability insurance executives, respectively.

Click to download the ACI ERISA Litigation Conference agenda or take a peek at the list of topics as shown below:

  • Fifth Third v. Dudenhoeffer and the Impact of the Decision on the Future of Stock Drop Case and Litigation Regarding Plan Investments;
  • ERISA Class Actions Post-Dukes and Comcast: Standing, Commonality, Releases and Arbitration Agreements, Monetary Classes, Issue Certification, Certification of “Class Of Plans”, Class Action Experts and Halliburton, and More;
  • The Affordable Care Act, Health Care Reform and New Claims and Defenses in Workforce Realignment Litigation;
  • 401(k) Fee Cases: Current Litigation Landscape and Recent Decisions, Evolving Defense Strategies, DOL Enforcement Initiatives, Impact of Tussey and Tibble, Excessive Fund Fees, and More;
  • Retiree Health and Welfare Benefits: M&G Polymers USA, LLC v. Tackett and the Yard-Man Presumption;
  • Multiemployer Pension Plan Withdrawal Liability;
  • Independent Fiduciaries: Working with Them to Manage Plan Assets, Handle Administrative Functions and Authorize Transactions; and the Latest Claims Involving Failure to Monitor Independent Fiduciaries and/or Keep Them Informed;
  • ESOP: New and Emerging Trends in Private Company ESOP Litigation, Lessons Learned from Recent Decisions in ESOP Cases, and the Latest on DOL Investigations and Enforcement Priorities;
  • Benefit Claims Litigation: the Latest on ERISA-Specific Case Tracks Aimed at Discovery Disputes, Attorney Fees Post-Hardt, Limitation Periods in Plans, Addressing Requests for Evidence Outside of the Record in “Conflict” Situations, Judicial Review of Claims Decisions and the Battle Over Discretion, and More;
  • Fiduciary Liability Insurance: Assessing Current Coverage and Future Needs & Strategic Litigation and Settlement Considerations;
  • New Trends in Church Plan Litigation;
  • New Trends in Top Hat Plans: The Latest Litigation Risks;
  • Public Pension Developments and Trends; and
  • Ethical Issues That Arise in ERISA Litigation: The Fiduciary Exception to Attorney-Client Privilege, the Question of Who Really Is Your Client.

In April of this year, I presented at the ACI ERISA Litigation conference in Chicago about working effectively with an economic and/or fiduciary expert. Click to access the slides entitled "Expert Coordination: Working With Financial and Fiduciary Experts" by Attorney Joseph M. Callow, Jr. (Keating Muething & Klekamp PLL), Attorney Ronald S. Kravitz (Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP) and Dr. Susan Mangiero (Fiduciary Leadership, LLC). For a recap of this session, click to read "ERISA Litigation and Use of Economic and Fiduciary Experts" (May 5, 2014).

On October 28, 2014, I will be part of a panel about public pension fund issues. I will be joined by Attorney Elaine C. Greenberg (Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP) and Attorney H. Douglas Hinson (Alston & Bird LLP). Topics we plan to cover are shown below:

  • Overview of Public Pension Market - Scope, Size and Funding Levels;
  • Government Plan Hot Button Issues;
  • Pension Reform:
  • Pension Obligations and Bankruptcy, With Discussion of Detroit;
  • SEC Enforcement Actions, With Discussion About the State of Illinois;
  • New Accounting and Financial Reporting Standards;
  • Use of Derivatives by Municipal Pension Plans;
  • Fiduciary Breaches as They Relate to Due Diligence; and
  • Suggestions for Risk Mitigation and Best Practices.

I hope to see you in the Big Apple in a few months!

Making Bets on U.S. Supreme Court Decisions

If I ever earn a spot on a game show like Jeopardy, answering questions about sports will be a challenge. I recognize that, unlike me, there are serious fans who spend more than a few hours each week, vetting all sorts of statistics and data points about what team is likely to win and by how much. At family gatherings, I hear nephews and in-laws waxing poetic about games such as Fantasy Football. According to the Fantasy Sports Trade Association ("FSTA"), only skilled parties need apply, adding that there is no gambling.

Big money is at stake. According to "Industry Demographics: At A Glance," nearly 34 million individuals, mostly men, played fantasy sports in the United States in 2013. Canada counts roughly 3.1 million fantasy sports players. Over a twelve month period, aggregate league fees for fantasy games tallied $1.71 billion. For information materials, the spend was $656 million. It was $492 million for challenge games. (For us neophytes, what is a challenge game?) Decade-long performance reflects "explosive absolute growth" of 241 percent or an annualized growth rate of 13.1 percent for 2008 through 2018. See "Top 10 Fastest Growing Industries" (April 2013).

So here I am, sitting at my computer, researching certain ERISA litigation matters, and lo and behold, what do I find? You guessed it - FantasySCOTUS. According to its dedicated website, over 20,000 lawyers, law students and "other avid Supreme Court followers" have opined as to how they believe cases will be decided. Click to view a short video about this Harlan Institute initiative.

For those who are waiting with bated breath for commentary about stock drop cases, fear not. Of 53 predictions, as of today, 23 votes are for affirmation by the U.S. Supreme Court and 30 votes are for reversal. There is even a breakdown of votes as to how each justice is expected to respond to the April 2, 2014 hearing about prudence. Click to check out the Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer roster of votes. Click here to download a transcript of the hearing.

What will they think of next?

ERISA Litigation and Use of Economic and Fiduciary Experts

On April 29, 2014, I presented with Attorney Joseph Callow and Attorney Ron Kravitz on the topic of case management and the use of experts. Having spoken several times at this relevant periodic conference about ERISA litigation for the American Conference Institute, I heard attorneys repeatedly emphasize the importance of good experts without ever going into much detail. As a result, I volunteered to develop this program and am appreciative of the time and knowledge of my esteemed panelists. Entitled "Expert Coordination: Working With Financial and Fiduciary Experts," the workshop consisted of a perspective from the defense, courtesy of Keating Muething & Klekamp PLL partner, Joseph M. Callow. The plaintiff's view about the use of experts was presented by Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP partner, Attorney Ronald S. Kravitz. I offered comments from the perspective of someone who has served as a testifying expert, calculated damages and provided forensic analyses as a behind-the-scenes economist.

Notably, our individual observations about what makes for a smooth process were similar, including the reality of tight litigation budgets and the desires of corporate General Counsel or Litigation Counsel to avoid excessively large invoices. We gave multiple suggestions. For example, one way to keep costs in check is to engage an expert on an incremental analysis basis with each work segment tied to a limited scope. Another idea is for an expert and supporting number crunchers to put together a budget. This disciplined projection of time and related fees, created at the outset, allows counsel and expert to share expectations about what is needed and how much money it will take to accomplish those tasks. Moreover, if an insurance company has to approve defense costs, putting together a detailed budget can help to avoid delays. The creation of a budget is likewise a tool for deciding whether a litigator and/or expert can accept a flat fee for non-testimony work. If the scope of work is ill-defined, it will be harder for either counsel or expert or both to commit to a flat fee at the same time that corporate clients favor the flat fee approach.

We all agreed that the engaging attorney and his or her litigation team reap benefits when the expert provides suggestions about further data and document evaluation. In other words, the attorneys look to the expert to be pro-active and helpful with respect to fact gathering and subsequent assessment of said information. Working with an expert who is relatively easy-going as opposed to an individual with a "difficult" personality is a plus for the legal team.

Timing matters too. If an expert is hired early on, he or she can make recommendations during discovery. If the expert is engaged too late in the process and discovery has ended, that expert's report could be adversely impacted in terms of completeness. 

Attorney Callow repeatedly urged litigators to do their homework when selecting an expert. Attorney Kravitz talked about the high price tag of having to replace an expert, once hired, in the event of poor quality work. In reply to my question about the use of lawyers as fiduciary experts, both gentlemen said that judges may not be receptive to having an attorney testify. If an attorney is needed, the better approach is to have that person serve as a consultant.

Click to access the April 29, 2014 slides for our session about the use of financial and fiduciary experts for ERISA litigation matters. Click here to read "Tips From the Experts: Working Effectively With A Financial Expert Witness" by Dr. Susan Mangiero and published by the American Bar Association.

Fifth Third Bancorp v John Dudenhoeffer

For those unable to attend the April 2, 2014 U.S. Supreme Court hearing, a review of the transcript of Fifth Third Bancorp et al v. John Dudenhoeffer et al (No. 12-751) may be of interest. Appearances were made by Robert A. Long, Esquire and partner with Covington & Burling LLP (on behalf of Petitioners), Ronald Mann, Esquire and Albert E. Cinelli Enterprise Professor of Law with the Columbia Law School (on behalf of Respondents) and Edwin S. Kneedler, Esquire, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice (on behalf of the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting Respondents.)

I will leave the legal interpretation to attorneys. The bullet points shown below are excerpted from the transcript and by no means reflect the totality of today's discussion. No doubt we will soon get insights from practicing attorneys who can properly parse the legal issues, ahead of a formal opinion from the U.S. Supreme Court bench.

From my perspective as an economist, I think it is always good whenever further guidance is provided about the important role of the ERISA fiduciary. Notwithstanding this notion of "more is better" in terms of shedding light on fiduciary duties, I envision a kerfuffle as it relates to the discussion about stock valuation. Encouraging the use of an independent appraiser makes sense. However, the valuation community has already been vocal about its fears that an expanded fiduciary standard could increase its liability and thereby cause some firms to exit the market and push up the price of an appraisal as a result. As an aside, during her April 1, 2014 presentation before Practising Law Institute pension plan investment workshop attendees, Counsel for Appellate and Special Litigation, Elizabeth Hopkins mentioned that ESOP enforcement continues to be an active area for the U.S. Department of Labor, with a particular emphasis on the valuation of company stock.

  • There were several questions about what constitutes "prudence," along with comments about the value of a stock that is issued by the plan sponsor and related disclosure requirements if the price of said stock is deemed to be "overvalued".
  • Throughout the proceeding, there were questions and comments about ERISA versus SEC Rule 10b-5 with respect to the use of information known by company executives.
  • Justice Kennedy asked about the landscape relating to the use of an independent fiduciary. Attorney Long commented that not all problems would be solved that way since "you'd have to have a monitoring trustee who would have to give the independent trustee any inside information that they had."
  • Justice Alito asked if an ERISA fiduciary can "take into account the interests of the participants as employees as opposed to their interests as investors" and offered that "It doesn't seem to me that those will necessarily be the same. And there may be situations in which something that would be potentially good for the participants as investors would be quite bad for them as employees." For example, individuals could lose their jobs if decision-makers for an Employee Stock Ownership Plan ("ESOP") stop buying company stock and this signal possibly leads to "bankruptcy and liquidation for the company."
  • Attorney Mann started to address what he called a "rock and a hard place" issue. Various justices commented thereafter, asking what a fiduciary is supposed to do when they have information about a stock. His reply was that, similar to a "corporate context where directors ordinarily are protected by the business judgment rule, if a situation arises in which their interests patently diverge from the interests of the shareholders, they don't simply decide to represent both interests but pick one over the over. They instead step aside and appoint...allow independent people to represent the shareholders."
  • Justice Kennedy asked Attorney Mann how he would write a statute to promote employee ownership of company stock.
  • Attorney Kneedler began his comments with a reference to Section 1104 and the focus of "operating the plan for the exclusive purpose of providing benefits to participants and their beneficiaries, which means the interests of employees are taken into account only insofar as they are participants in the plan, not more generally." He agreed with Justice Sotomayor that a "stock drop in and of itself" is not necessarily proof of poor procedural prudence. He added that "fiduciaries have an obligation to actually exercise their discretion and actually investigate...monitoring of the ... investment."
  • Justice Breyer inquired about the materiality issue, i.e. how much "in assets is accounted for by the ownership" of company stock by an ERISA plan.
  • Subsequent questions and comments focused on the notion of selling existing positions of company stock versus not buying anymore when material information suggests that the stock is expensive relative to its intrinsic worth.
  • When the podium returned to Attorney Long, he stated that "There is no circuit split on the issue that we've spent all our time discussing this morning. The only circuit split is on whether this presumption applies at the motion to dismiss stage." He cited the intent of Congress to encourage company ownership and suggested that rendering ESOPs "unworkable" would "basically cause many companies to say we can't put fiduciaries in that situation, so we're not going to have ESOPs at all."

The case was submitted at 11:30 a.m. Click here to download the Fifth Third Bancorp v. John Dudenhoeffer hearing transcript.