This week’s notable decision is Sacerdote v. Cammack Larhette Advisors, LLC, No. 18-1558, __F.3d__, 2019 WL 4777824 (2d Cir. Oct. 1, 2019), which is one of a series of cases involving university retirement plans and allegations of excessive administrative fees and imprudent investments.  The Second Circuit revived the lawsuit against Defendant Cammack Larhette Advisors, LLC (“Cammack”), an independent investment management company that New York University (“NYU”) hired to provide investment advice on its retirement plans.  In so doing, the Court took us back to our law school days with a lesson in civil procedure.   Continue Reading Second Circuit Revives Excessive Fee Suit Against Investment Advisor

This week’s notable decision, Simonoff v. Saghafi, et al., No. 19-3001, __F.App’x__, 2019 WL 4691468 (6th Cir. Sept. 26, 2019), is one where your sympathies may align with the end result, but one which seemingly makes a case that it is difficult to get attorneys’ fees if you’re a successful party in an ERISA action.

As the panel noted in its opening line, “[a]ll family disputes are sad.”  The underlying dispute involved a QDRO enforcement action between a husband and his wife’s guardian following 55 years of marriage.  In short, Defendant Dr. Saghafi, alleged that his estranged daughter took advantage of his wife’s (her mother’s) dementia by isolating her from the family and hiring a divorce attorney who convinced the family court to issue two QDROs requiring Dr. Saghafi to sign off on the division of certain retirement funds.  He refused.  So, Plaintiff, the guardian of the wife’s estate, brought suit to enforce the QDROs.  Dr. Saghafi responded by bringing several counterclaims, including a civil RICO claim.  The district court enforced the QDROs and dismissed the counterclaims, not on their merits, but because of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine which prohibits federal appellate review of state judgments. Continue Reading Sixth Circuit Affirms Denial of Attorneys’ Fees to Successful ERISA Plaintiff in QDRO Dispute

Think of someone driving 17 miles per hour over the speed limit on an unpaved road.  What words initially come to mind?  If one of them is “crime” then you might agree with the outcome in this week’s notable decision, Caldwell v. Unum Life Insurance Company of America, No. 17-8078, __F.App’x__, 2019 WL 4463495 (10th Cir. Sept. 18, 2019).

Caldwell involves a dispute over accidental death and dismemberment (AD&D) benefits for the death of the insured who died “when he was thrown from the vehicle he was driving at 74 mph on an unpaved road.”  Unum Life Insurance Company of America denied payment of AD&D benefits based on an exclusion in its policy for losses “caused by, contributed to by, or resulting from … an attempt to commit or commission of a crime.”  The district court found that Unum’s interpretation of “crime” to include speeding (which is a misdemeanor under Wyoming law) was reasonable and made in good faith.  Caldwell v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am., 271 F. Supp. 3d 1252, 1264 (D. Wyo. 2017), aff’d, No. 17-8078, 2019 WL 4463495 (10th Cir. Sept. 18, 2019).  It explained that the term “crime” is not ambiguous; it is a violation of the law.  Even if some level of speeding is deemed normal in Wyoming, people understand speeding to be a crime.  The district court granted summary judgment to Unum. Continue Reading Tenth Circuit Affirms Denial of AD&D Benefits for Death Related to Speeding