Graden v. Conexant Systems Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that, under ERISA, “participant” is a “distinct term[] of art” that “refers to an employee or former employee who takes part in his employer's plan.”
• recognizing that a plan and a plan administrator may be sued under § 1132(a)(1)(B)
• concluding that even when plaintiffs “could demand a full benefit payment from the plan itself under § 1132(a)(1)(B) . . . , for most plaintiffs the sensible route is to use § 1132(a)(2
• explaining that any recovery under ERISA goes solely to the participants who invested in the imprudent fund
• stating that even when plaintiffs “could demand a full benefit payment from the plan itself under § 1132(a)(1)(B) . . . . for most plaintiffs the sensible route is to use § 1132(a)(2
• describing the distinction between constitutional, prudential, and statutory standing, and characterizing a similar ERISA claim as raising no constitutional standing issue

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).