Spencer v. Bales

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that “[the employer] may have been acting as a fiduciary when it communicated with its employees and retirees concerning the contents of the welfare benefits plan”
• holding that plan participants may bring fiduciary-duty claims under ERISA § 502(a)(3)
• concluding that plaintiffs were not precluded from bringing claims for breach of fiduciary duty based on defendants’ provision of “false and misleading plan information,” which were distinct from plaintiffs’ benefits claims under Section 502(a)(1)(B)
• holding that plan participants may bring fiduciary‐duty claims under ERISA § 502(a)(3)
• holding that \Varity Corp did not eliminate a private cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty when another potential remedy is available; instead the district court's remedy is limited to such equitable relief as is considered appropriate\
• concluding that district court did not abuse its discretion when it held that the plaintiff was not entitled to statutory penalties, where plaintiff presented no evidence of bad faith or intentional misconduct by defendants, and failed to demonstrate prejudice

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).