Federal Case

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that extraordinary circumstances do not exist when the plaintiff fails to establish repeated misrepresentations over time or that plaintiffs are particularly vulnerable
• holding that “all the material elements of a breach of fiduciary duty claim were patently obvious” where defendant “openly announced that certain employees would receive better benefits, and others would not”
• holding that “all the material elements of a breach of fiduciary duty claim were patently obvious” where defendant “openly announced that certain employees would receive better benefits, and others would not”
• observing that § 1113 \does not protect defendants in instances involving concealment or fraud\
• observing that S 1113 \does not protect defendants in instances involving concealment or fraud\
• treatment of the breach of fiduciary duty claim is treated as independent and distinct from the equitable estoppel claim based on ERISA disclosure violations

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).