- [04/04] US unemployment aid applications jump to 385,000
- [04/03] HK dockworkers refuse to back down in port strike
- [04/02] Euro area unemployment at record 12 percent
Hedlund v. The Educational Resources Institute, Inc.
The bankruptcy court did not err in granting a partial discharge of the debtor's student loans under 11 U.S.C. section 523(a)(8), and the district court's judgment holding otherwise is reversed and remanded, where: 1) the district court erred by reviewing the bankruptcy court's good faith finding de novo, rather than for clear error; and 2) the bankruptcy court's finding of good faith was not clearly erroneous.
In Re: Majestic Star Casino LLC
Summary judgment to debtors and certain of its subsidiaries and affiliates on their motion to avoid its controlling entity's termination of its status as an "S" corporation, an entity type that is not subject to federal taxation is vacated and remanded with directions to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, where: 1) S-corp status is not "property" within the meaning of the Internal Revenue Code; 2) the debtors' QSub status was not "property" and the Bankruptcy Court's contrary conclusion was error; 3) even if the debtors' QSub status were "property," it is not properly seen as property of debtors' bankruptcy estate, and the contrary conclusion of the Bankruptcy Court cannot stand; and 4) debtors do not have standing to challenge the revocation of the tax status by its corporate parent.
Wilson v. Dollar General Corporation
Summary judgment for defendant-employer on plaintiff's claim that defendant failed to provide a reasonable accommodation for his disability in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act is affirmed, where: 1) plaintiff had standing to maintain his claim despite his bankruptcy filing because, due to the powers vested in the Chapter 13 debtor and trustee, a Chapter 13 debtor may retain standing to bring his pre-bankruptcy petition claims; but 2) plaintiff was unable to show he could perform the essential functions of his position with a reasonable accommodation.
Bullock v. BankChampaign, N. A.
The term "defalcation" in the 11 U.S.C. section 532(a)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code includes a culpable state of mind requirement involving knowledge of, or gross recklessness in respect to, the improper nature of the fiduciary behavior, and thus the lower courts' holdings that petitioner-debtor's debts were not dischargeable pursuant to section 523(a)(4) because the debts fell within section 523(a)(4)'s exception "as a debt for defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity," under an "objective recklessness" standard, is vacated and remanded.
US Airways, Inc. v. McCutchen
In an ERISA action under section 502(a)(3), which authorizes health-plan administrators to bring a civil action to obtain appropriate equitable relief to enforce the terms of the plan, based on an equitable lien by agreement, the ERISA plan's terms govern. Neither general unjust enrichment principles nor specific doctrines reflecting those principles, such as the double-recovery or common-fund rules, can override the applicable contract.
Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. Morgan Stanley Inv. Mgmt. Inc.
In an action alleging that a pension plan administrator purchased and continued to hold certain mortgage-backed securities in violation of its fiduciary duties under ERISA, the District Court's dismissal is affirmed where the amended complaint fails to allege facts supporting the plausible inference that defendant knew or should have known that the particular mortgage-backed securities in the portfolio were imprudent investments, as a decline in market price of a type of security does not, by itself, give rise to the reasonable inference that it was imprudent to purchase or hold that type of security.
Hannington v. Sun Life and Health Insurance
Judgment for plaintiff in ERISA action in which plaintiff alleged defendant reduced his disability payments under an ERISA-qualified plan by the amount of his service-connected disability compensation from Veterans Affairs, is affirmed, where the Veterans' Benefits Act, is, as a matter of statutory construction, substantially dissimilar to the Social Security Act and the Railroad Retirement Act, and thus, the VA benefits plaintiff receives are not 'Other Income" for purposes of reducing the payment defendant owes plaintiff under the ERISA-plan.
Tibble v. Edison International
District court's judgment in a class action brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) by plaintiff beneficiaries who alleged that their pension plan was managed imprudently and in a self-interested fashion, is affirmed, where: 1) the district court correctly measured the timeliness of claims alleging imprudence in plan design from when the decision to include those investments in the plan was initially made; 2) mere notification that retail funds were in the Plan menu falls short of providing actual knowledge of the breach or violation; 3) because DOL's interpretation of how the safe harbor functions is consistent with the statutory language, the district court properly decided that section ERISA section 404(c) did not preclude merits consideration of beneficiaries' claims; 4) the revenue sharing as carried out by defendants does not violate ERISA; 5) defendants did not violate their duty of prudence under ERISA by including in the plan menu mutual funds, and a unitized fund for employees' investment in the company's stock; and 5) defendants were imprudent in deciding to include retail-class shares of three specific mutual funds in the plan menu because they failed to investigate the possibility of institutional-share class alternatives.
Associated Press text, photo, graphic, audio and/or video material shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium. Neither these AP materials nor any portion thereof may be stored in a computer except for personal and non-commercial use. Users may not download or reproduce a substantial portion of the AP material found on this web site. AP will not be held liable for any delays, inaccuracies, errors or omissions therefrom or in the transmission or delivery of all or any part thereof or for any damages arising from any of the foregoing.