ERISA Pension Class Actions

GLF prosecutes cases across the country.  Among the Firm’s current cases:

  • Osberg v. Foot Locker, filed in 2007, is a pension benefit misrepresentation case.  It challenges Foot Locker’s conversion of its traditional pension plan into a “cash balance” plan which was implemented in a way that resulted in an extended “wear-away” freeze period during which many Plan participants earned no benefits whatsoever for several years despite having been told they were. This case seeks to hold Foot Locker accountable for falsely portraying the effect of the conversion and fraudulently obtaining employees’ services without providing them with the pension benefits they were told they were earning.

  • Pender v. Bank of America Corp is a certified class action filed in 2004 that challenges Bank of America's $3 billion transfer of employees' 401(k) plan assets to the Bank's pension plan in a scheme to profit the Bank. In 2007, three years after GLF filed Pender, the Bank disclosed that IRS had conducted an audit and ruled that by stripping employees of their right to the gains earned through the investment of their 401(k) accounts, the Bank violated federal tax law. However, the Bank negotiated a settlement with IRS that did not require the Bank to fully remedy its misconduct and make Bank employees whole. That is the objective of Pender.

  • Laurent v. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP contends that PwC used a fictitious definition of "retirement" to evade the law's lump sum distribution requirements and short-change employees when they left the Firm and requested a cash-out of their plan benefit. In 2006, Plaintiff obtained a ruling that the definition was indeed invalid and PwC failed in its attempts to have that ruling overturned. The case, filed in 2004, is still ongoing.

  • Durand v. Hanover is a case challenging a plan’s lump sum calculation methodology in a cash balance plan that provided employees the right to “invest” their hypothetical account balances in a 401(k)-style menu of investment options. The trial court originally ruled that the Plaintiff had to first ask the Plan in an internal claims appeal whether it would change its practices, a ruling that the Plaintiff challenged successfully in the court of appeals. The case, filed in 2007, is still ongoing.

 

 
498 7th Street
Brooklyn, New York 11215
1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 1000,
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (718) 788-1500 | Fax: (718) 788-1650 Phone: (202) 243-1000 | Fax: (202) 243-1001