Author Archive

Brian Spiro

Brian Spiro

Brian Spiro is an attorney licensed in Florida and New York. He handles retirement plan litigation.

Under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), a penalty may be imposed on a plan administrator that fails to comply with a request for ERISA-required information by a plan participant or beneficiary. Upon request, a plan administrator is required to provide the following to a participant or beneficiary of an ERISA plan:

The purpose of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) is to benefit the interest of employees and their beneficiaries in employee benefit plans.  ERISA governs the duties, both fiduciary and statutory, that the employer and insurer must follow. Section 502(a)(3) of ERISA permits employees denied benefits under

Under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), a person denied benefits under an employee benefit claim is permitted to challenge that denial in federal court. 29 U.S.C. § 1001; § 1132(a)(1)(B)). Importantly, based on the Plan, the Court reviewing the denial of benefits by an ERISA plan administration will apply a de novo standard of review or a review for an abuse of discretion. The importance of this distinction cannot be understated.

The Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) contains a “prohibited transactions” rule. This rule was created to prohibit transactions which provide an opportunity for abuse. ERISA contains a “prohibited transactions” rule. This rule was created to prohibit transactions which provide an opportunity for abuse. The prohibited transactions, outlined in 29

The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) is a federal law governs most pension and health plans in the private sector that provide protection for individuals through these plans. ERISA requires plans to provide their participants with plan information including important information about plan funding and features, and

Fees for plan services are paid out of the plan assets, yet rarely are the reasonableness of the fees monitored to ensure plan participants are being charged a reasonable amount.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that an ex-wife lacked standing to sue her former husband’s employer and benefits administrator under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”).

All too often pension-plan participants (employees and retirees) are left in the dark about the fees and expenses associated with the mutual funds selected for their company’s plan, whether it is a 401(k) savings plan or otherwise. Unlike general market fluctuations, employers can control these fees and expenses. In fact, the exercise of such control is required under federal law. Depending upon the size of a company’s plan, both in number of participants as well as its assets, a company may have access to the institutional investment market. Such access will likely afford a company the opportunity to purchase investments with considerably lower fees compared to the retail market.