Polsinelli brings broad experience and a deep understanding of ERISA Litigation. Polsinelli’s ERISA Litigation practice has represented clients in all aspects of ERISA-related matters throughout the nation.

What Sets Us Apart

  • Unparalleled ERISA knowledge: With more than 40 executive compensation, employee benefits and ESOP professionals, we have one of the largest and most decorated ERISA practices in the country. Our attorneys have been recognized by Chambers USA, BTI, The Legal 500, and Best Lawyers as being best-in-class. Our litigators partner with our experienced multidisciplinary team of regulatory and plan lawyers to ensure that our strategies are practical and comprehensive in theory and application.
  • Nationally capable trial-ready team: Our ERISA litigators are trial lawyers at heart and advocate for clients across the full range of ERISA and benefits-related issues. We advance our clients’ interests at every stage – from risk mitigation and avoidance to compliance monitoring, pre-suit assessments, rights enforcement, trial, and appeal.
  • Practice depth: Our ERISA litigation team delivers strategic, results-driven representation across the United States. With deep experience in employee benefits law, we handle complex disputes (from pre-litigation counseling to navigating federal courts).
  • Technology integration: We embrace technology to collaborate with our clients and deliver more transparent, efficient and cost-effective legal services tailored to our clients needs, including case management software, predictive analytics, and advanced e-discovery tools.

Our team of litigators represents employers, ERISA plans, plan sponsors, Committee members, plan administrators, third-party administrators, fiduciaries, trustees, claim adjudicators, underwriters, insurers and others in ERISA litigation matters. We also collaborate with Polsinelli’s Employee Benefits and ESOP practices to ensure that our strategy is practical and comprehensive, not just in theory but also in application.

Whether dealing with preemption, removal, exhaustion of administrative remedies, standard or review, scope of review, class actions, motion practice and other strategies associated with ERISA’s remedial enforcement scheme, Polsinelli’s ERISA litigators use their knowledge of the complexities of ERISA to benefit clients, often obtaining dismissal of such claims or summary judgment in favor of their clients.

Related Capabilities
Labor & EmploymentCalifornia Employment LawEmployee Benefits & Executive CompensationEmployment Advice & InvestigationsEmployment Class & Collective ActionsEmployment Litigation, Arbitration & Dispute ResolutionImmigration & Global MobilityInternational Employment & Labor LawManagement - Labor RelationsOFCCP & Affirmative Action PlansPublic Accommodations & AccessibilityRestrictive Covenants & Trade Secrets LitigationWorkplace Safety, Health (OSHA) & Environmental AdvisingEmployee Stock Ownership Plans
Publications
All Publications
Federal Court Grants Summary Judgment in ESOP Releveraging Case, Rejecting Novel Dilution Theory
Key Takeaways A federal district court in Arkansas granted summary judgment in favor of an ESOP sponsor, its board and the ESOP trustee, rejecting claims that a two-step releveraging transaction violated ERISA fiduciary duties. The court held that decisions regarding ESOP repurchase obligation strategy, such as releveraging, are generally corporate business decisions, not fiduciary acts subject to ERISA — particularly where the board spent considerable time with qualified third-party advisors workshopping various alternatives to releveraging. The court also reinforced that ESOP trustees satisfy their fiduciary duties where they engage in a robust, well-documented process, rely on independent advisors and negotiate favorable transaction terms for the plan. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas granted summary judgment to all defendants in Shipp et
Read More
Supreme Court Revives ERISA Litigation Dismissed in Second Circuit: Will the Supreme Court’s Adoption of a Liberal Pleading Standard Increase ERISA Class Actions Under Section 406?
On Thursday, April 17, a unanimous Supreme Court held that a less demanding pleading standard is applicable when plaintiffs bring an Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) class action under ERISA Section 406, despite concerns that this might lead to a flood of meritless claims. This recent decision affects nearly all employers. The underlying question in Cunningham v. Cornell University, et al.—whether pleading a prohibited transaction claim under ERISA Section 406 involving a plan and a party in interest also required pleading elements of ERISA Section 408, which lays out exemptions to that prohibition—has been answered unanimously by the Supreme Court on Thursday, April 17. Succinctly, the Court held that “[t]o state a claim under §1106(a)(1)(C), a plaintiff need
Read More