Close X

Attorney Spotlight

How does Eli Richardson's past work with the federal government inform his client interactions? Find out more>

Search

Close X

Experience

Search our Experience

Experience Spotlight

In June 2016, AmSurg Corp. and Envision Healthcare Holdings, Inc. (Envision) announced they have signed a definitive merger agreement pursuant to which the companies will combine in an all-stock transaction. Upon completion of the merger, which is expected to be tax-free to the shareholders of both organizations, the combined company will be named Envision Healthcare Corporation and co-headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee and Greenwood Village, Colorado. The company's common stock is expected to trade on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol: EVHC. Bass, Berry & Sims served as lead counsel on the transaction, led by Jim Jenkins. Read more.

AmSurg logo


Close X

Thought Leadership

Enter your search terms in the relevant box(es) below to search for specific Thought Leadership.
To see a recent listing of Thought Leadership, click the blue Search button below.

Thought Leadership Spotlight

Inside the FCA blogInside the FCA blog features ongoing updates related to the False Claims Act (FCA), including insight on the latest legal decisions, regulatory developments and FCA settlements. The blog provides timely updates for corporate boards, directors, compliance managers, general counsel and other parties interested in the organizational impact and legal developments stemming from issues potentially giving rise to FCA liability.

Read More >

Supreme Court Decision Raises Stakes for Summary Plan Descriptions

Publications

June 16, 2011
A recent United States Supreme Court decision expands the scope of remedies potentially available to plan participants harmed by inaccurate summary plan descriptions ("SPDs") and other informal plan communications.

In CIGNA Corp. v. Amara, the employer had converted its traditional defined benefit pension plan to a "cash balance" plan. In the course of the conversion, the employer distributed various materials to participants, including an SPD and a newsletter stating that the new cash balance plan would produce an "overall improvement in … retirement benefits" and that the company would not realize any cost savings from the conversion. In fact, these statements were inaccurate and, as applied to some participants, untrue. The communications also failed to describe a "wear away" period that would prevent some participants from accruing additional benefits for a period of time.

The Supreme Court was asked to decide what remedies were available to participants and whether benefits should be calculated as described in the informal communications, rather than under the actual plan document. The participants requested calculation as described in the communications (which had the potential to increase benefits) if they could show that "likely harm" resulted from the miscommunications. The Court rejected the request but noted that participants who could show "actual harm" from the miscommunications could seek "equitable" relief, if the miscommunication constituted intentional misrepresentation or other fiduciary misconduct actionable under Section 502(a)(3) of ERISA. The Court observed that the exact nature of equitable relief may vary from case to case.

The Amara ruling is somewhat of a surprise to many in the benefits community, given prior decisions from the Court interpreting Section 502(a)(3) very narrowly. Since the lower court decision being reviewed by the Supreme Court in Amara had not specifically addressed liability under Section 502(a)(3), some observers believe the portion of the Court’s opinion allowing possible liability under that section is non-binding "dicta." Even so, the Court has provided would-be plaintiffs with powerful ammunition, and the Department of Labor also has already used the Supreme Court decision to argue for greater responsibility on the part of fiduciaries. The decision could result in increased claims against plan fiduciaries under Section 502(a)(3), and employers would be well advised to review their participant communications (including, but not limited to, SPDs) for consistency with existing plan documents.

If you have questions regarding the information in this alert, please contact any of the attorneys in our Employee Benefits Practice Group.

Related Services

Notice

Visiting, or interacting with, this website does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. Although we are always interested in hearing from visitors to our website, we cannot accept representation on a new matter from either existing clients or new clients until we know that we do not have a conflict of interest that would prevent us from doing so. Therefore, please do not send us any information about any new matter that may involve a potential legal representation until we have confirmed that a conflict of interest does not exist and we have expressly agreed in writing to the representation. Until there is such an agreement, we will not be deemed to have given you any advice, any information you send may not be deemed privileged and confidential, and we may be able to represent adverse parties.