Washington, D.C., November 19, 2024 – The ERISA Industry Committee (ERIC) recently filed amicus briefs in two separate cases affecting large employers. The first case represents a challenge to the practice of “pension risk transfer.” This is a growing area of class action litigation where the trial bar attacks routine transactions that are part of plan administration for pension plans governed under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).
Topic Archives:
ERIC Statement on U.S. Supreme Court Decision to Overturn the Chevron Doctrine
Today, the ERISA Industry Committee (ERIC) released the following statement on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the Chevron doctrine in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. The statement is attributable to Tom Christina, Executive Director of the ERIC Legal Center.
The ERISA Industry Committee Applauds Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ Decision to Affirm ERISA Preemption of California State Law Claims
Washington, D.C., June 12, 2024 – The ERISA Industry Committee (ERIC) today applauded the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in Bristol SL Holdings, Inc. v. Cigna Health & Life Ins. Co., which affirmed the previous ruling by the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, which determined that the state law breach of contract and promissory estoppel claims at issue are preempted by the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).
The ERISA Industry Committee Urges Indiana Department of Insurance to Act Immediately and Address Conflict with Federal Law
Washington, D.C., May 17, 2024 – The ERISA Industry Committee (ERIC) recently filed public comments on proposed regulations issued by the Indiana Department of Insurance. This proposed rule seeks to implement legislative changes to the state’s All Payer Claims Database (APCD). ERIC’s comments alerted the Department that the proposed rule violates the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) and would likely trigger a lawsuit if advanced in its current form.
ERIC, Coalition Allies File Amicus Brief in U.S. Supreme Court Supporting Review of Claims Case Threatening to Explode Frivolous Litigation
Washington, D.C., May 9, 2024 – The ERISA Industry Committee (ERIC) and a coalition of employee benefit industry groups today urged the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in Bugielski et al v. AT&T.
The ERISA Industry Committee Appoints Tom Christina to ERIC Legal Center & Promotes Christina Strogis to Director of Health Policy
WASHINGTON – March 1, 2024 – The ERISA Industry Committee (ERIC) has appointed veteran employee benefits attorney Tom Christina as Executive Director of the ERIC Legal Center and promoted Christina Strogis to the position of Director of Health Policy, Federal Affairs.
ERIC Urges New York Department of Financial Services to Remove Self-Funded Plans from Proposed PBM Regulations
Sorry, but you do not have permission to view this content.
The ERISA Industry Committee Criticizes Proposed New York State Regulations Covering Pharmacy Benefit Managers
WASHINGTON, October 18, 2023 – The ERISA Industry Committee (ERIC) submitted public comments this week expressing deep concerns with regulations proposed by the New York State Department of Financial Services in “Proposed Consolidated Rulemaking for Insurance Regulations 219, 224, and 226-229,” which would implement a state statute enacted in 2021 covering pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) and their network practices.
ERIC, Coalition Allies File Amicus Brief Supporting AT&T Appeal Effort in Recordkeeping Claims Case
WASHINGTON, September 11, 2023 – The ERISA Industry Committee (ERIC) today filed a coalition amicus brief together with other groups representing sponsors and service providers of employee benefit plans in Bugielski et. al. v. AT&T, arguing that the decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit will have far-reaching negative consequences for plan participants, sponsors, and fiduciaries.
ERIC Legal Update – Federal District Court Finds Additional Regulations to Conflict with Terms of No Surprises Act in TMA III Case
Sorry, but you do not have permission to view this content.