This week’s notable decision threads the fine line between ERISA and state law preemption. In Halperin v. Richards, No. 20-2793, 2021 WL 3184305 (7th Cir. July 28, 2021) (Circuit Judges Kanne, Rovner, and Hamilton), the Seventh Circuit considered bankruptcy creditors’ claims against a company’s directors and officers for inflating stock value to conceal the

Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Ass’n v. California Secure Choice Ret. Sav. Program, No. 20-15591, 2021 WL 1805758, __ F.3d __ (9th Cir. May 6, 2021) (Before Circuit Judges Hurwitz and Bress and District Judge Clifton L. Corker (E.D. Tenn.)).

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, more than 30 percent of private industry workers do not have access to an employer-provided retirement plan, amounting to almost 40 million employees. To combat this problem, many states (and the City of Seattle) have adopted government-run auto-enrollment retirement programs.
Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Determines CalSavers is Saved from ERISA Preemption

This week’s notable decision, Rutledge v. Pharm. Care Mgmt., Case No. 18-540, —S.Ct.—, 2020 WL 7250098 (U.S. Dec. 10, 2020), is a major win for consumers and pharmacies clearing the way for states to pass laws and implement regulations regulating pharmacy benefit managers (“PBMs”), third party companies hired by insurers to adjudicate and reimburse pharmacies (many of them small) for the cost of drugs covered by prescription-drug plans. At issue before the Court was an Arkansas state law, Act 900, which sought to regulate PBM reimbursement prices to pharmacies for the drugs that ERISA beneficiaries and participants obtained as part of their health plan coverage. The question presented to the Court was whether Act 900 was preempted by ERISA. 
Continue Reading Supreme Court Finds ERISA Does Not Preempt Arkansas State Law Regulating Pharmacy Benefit Managers