Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
_______________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
D.C. Civil Action No. 07-cv-02098
(Honorable Berle M. Schiller)
______________
Argued March 7, 2011
Before: SCIRICA, AMBRO and VANASKIE,
Circuit Judges.
(Filed: August 19, 2011)
MICHAEL A. WOLFF, ESQUIRE (ARGUED)
JEROME J. SCHLICHTER, ESQUIRE
Schlichter Bogard & Denton LLP
100 South 4th Street, Suite 900
St. Louis, Missouri 63102
Attorneys for Appellants
LOUISE M. BETTS, ESQUIRE (ARGUED)
ELIZABETH HOPKINS, ESQUIRE
United States Department of Labor
200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Room N4611
Washington, D.C. 20210
Attorneys for Amicus Curiae-Appellant,
The Secretary of Labor, Hilda L. Solis
CLAIRE PRESTEL, ESQUIRE
Public Justice, P.C.
1825 K Street, N.W., Suite 200
10
11
B.
1.
ERISA is a comprehensive and reticulated statute, the
product of a decade of congressional study of the Nations
private employee benefit system. Mertens v. Hewitt Assocs.,
508 U.S. 248, 251 (1993) (internal quotation omitted). In
enacting ERISA, Congress resolved innumerable disputes
between powerful competing interestsnot all in favor of
potential plaintiffs. Id. at 262. Because Congress did not
require employers to establish benefit plans in the first place .
. . ERISA represents a careful balancing between ensuring
fair and prompt enforcement of rights under a plan and the
encouragement of the creation of such plans. Conkright v.
Frommert, --- U.S. ----, 130 S. Ct. 1640, 1648-49 (2010)
(internal quotations and citations omitted). Accordingly,
Congress sought to induc[e] employers to offer benefits by
assuring a predictable set of liabilities, under uniform
standards of primary conduct and a uniform regime of
ultimate remedial orders and awards when a violation has
occurred. Rush Prudential HMO, Inc. v. Moran, 536 U.S.
355, 379 (2002). To that end, ERISA authorizes six distinct
civil actions that may be brought by various parties under
delineated circumstances, including actions by plan
participants to remedy a breach of fiduciary duty. See LaRue,
552 U.S. at 253.
2.
ERISA requires each plan to have one or more named
fiduciaries that are granted the authority to manage the
operation and administration of the plan. 29 U.S.C.
1102(a)(1). But by ERISAs definition:
12
13
3.
ERISA imposes statutory duties on fiduciaries that
relate to the proper management, administration, and
investment of fund assets, with an eye toward ensuring that
the benefits authorized by the plan are ultimately paid to
participants and beneficiaries. LaRue, 552 U.S. at 253
(quoting Mass. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Russell, 473 U.S. 134,
142 (1985)). Accordingly, an ERISA fiduciary is required to:
discharge his duties with respect to a plan solely
in the interest of the participants and
beneficiaries and
(A) for the exclusive purpose of:
(i) providing benefits to participants and their
beneficiaries; and
(ii) defraying reasonable expenses of
administering the plan;
(B) with the care, skill, prudence, and diligence
under the circumstances then prevailing that a
prudent man acting in a like capacity and
familiar with such matters would use in the
conduct of an enterprise of a like character and
with like aims.
29 U.S.C. 1104(a)(1)(A)-(B).
The fiduciary standard is flexible, such that the
adequacy of a fiduciarys independent investigation and
ultimate investment selection is evaluated in light of the
character and aims of the particular type of plan he serves.
In re Unisys Sav. Plan Litig. (Unisys I), 74 F.3d 420, 434 (3d
Cir. 1996) (internal quotation omitted). And an ERISA
fiduciary acts prudently when it gives appropriate
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
VI.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we will affirm
the judgment of the District Court.
29