TITLE

Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claim Time Barred

PUB. DATE
June 2008
SOURCE
Legal-Legislative Reporter;Jun2008, Vol. 42 Issue 6, p7
SOURCE TYPE
Trade Publication
DOC. TYPE
Article
ABSTRACT
The article discusses a court case wherein a motion to dismiss based on the plaintiff's failure to satisfy the applicable statute of limitations for a breach of fiduciary duties was affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. This is the case Bishop et al. versus Lucent Technologies Inc. et al. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants breached fiduciary duties by misleading them to retire and offered false information about the retirement and severance incentive policies.
ACCESSION #
32085323

 

Related Articles

  • Third-Party Claims Administrator Acts as a Fiduciary When It Uses Plan Assets.  // Legal-Legislative Reporter;Apr2007, Vol. 41 Issue 4, p12 

    The article discusses a court case wherein the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit decided that the defendant was a fiduciary when he failed to disclose a subsidy information on a health plan. It is stated that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) reviewed the meaning of...

  • Failure to Sign Release Agreement Inadequate Reason to Deny Benefits.  // Legal-Legislative Reporter;May2007, Vol. 41 Issue 5, p5 

    The article looks at a court case decision wherein the defendant refused severance benefits to the plaintiff when the latter failed to signed a release agreement. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth District reviews the regulation that lack of a signed release form is insufficient reason for...

  • Plaintiff Entitled to Severance When Purchaser of His Division Does Not Offer Comparable Benefits.  // Benefits & Compensation Digest;Aug2006, Vol. 43 Issue 8, Special section p4 

    The article reports that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reverses a district court and holds a company wrongfully denied a former employee's claim for severance benefits after the company that purchased his division failed to offer him benefits comparable to those he received...

  • SEVERANCE.  // Benefits Magazine;Dec2013, Vol. 50 Issue 12, p67 

    The article discusses the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit case Pactive Corp. v. Rupert wherein the defendant filed a lawsuit seeking severance benefits while plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming that its decision to withhold such benefits to defendant was legal. The court reviewed the...

  • Sixth Circuit: Downsizing Payments Are Not FICA-Taxable Wages.  // Venulex Legal Summaries;2012 Q3, Special section p1 

    The article discusses the court case, U.S. v. Quality Stores Inc., wherein the U.S. Court of Appeals of the Sixth Circuit declares that severance payments paid to an involuntary reduction in force are exempted from Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) taxes. The court's decision allows...

  • Plaintiffs Fail to Establish Claim for Severance Benefits.  // Legal-Legislative Reporter;Jun2007, Vol. 41 Issue 6, p2 

    The article discusses the court case Sears et al v. the Union Central Life Insurance Co. The plaintiffs, who were employees of the defendant company, filed a complaint against the defendant when it sold the division the plaintiffs were working at. The claims for severance benefits of the...

  • Remand to Complete Administrative Record Was Proper.  // Legal-Legislative Reporter;Feb2009, Vol. 43 Issue 2, p3 

    The article considers the issue of severance benefits, based on the ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in the case Whitescarver v. Sabin Robbins Paper Co. which was released on November 5, 2008. The appellate court affirms the decision of a district court to...

  • Severance benefits weren't subject to FICA. Gray, Michael // Michael Gray, CPA's Tax & Business Insight;Oct2012, p13 

    The article reports on the ruling of the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals on a case involving Quality Stores Inc. wherein it held that the severance benefits paid by the store to its employees relating to closing its stores were not subject to Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) tax.

  • Plaintiffs Not Entitled to Plan Surplus Without Evidence of Plan Termination.  // Legal-Legislative Reporter;Nov2007, Vol. 41 Issue 11, p9 

    The article discusses the court case Jensen et al v. Moore Wallace North America Inc. et al, filed in August 21, 2007. The case involves present and former participants of a benefit pension plan established by the defendant in 1947. The plaintiffs filed the lawsuit seeking to recover a US$200...

Share

Read the Article

Courtesy of THE LIBRARY OF VIRGINIA

Sorry, but this item is not currently available from your library.

Try another library?
Sign out of this library

Other Topics