Six Hot Topics in ERISA Law Are Focus of The John Marshall Law Review

Posted November 4, 2012 by

The John Marshall Law Review Editorial Board is pleased to announce the publication of its latest issue, which features pieces by six outstanding authors who examine the latest issues in ERISA and court cases focusing on ERISA provisions.

The Spring 2012 issue of The John Marshall Law Review focuses on “The Past, Present, and Future of Supreme Court Jurisprudence on ERISA.”

This latest issue is a complement to the Tenth Annual Employee Benefits Symposium co-hosted by the Center for Tax Law & Employee Benefits and the Law Review in April 2012. The six articles, written by symposium speakers, cover a wide range of themes.

“ERISA Prudence and Employer Stock: What Is the Correct Standard of Prudence?” by José Martin Jara of SNR Denton addresses the ERISA fiduciary duties of corporate officers and directors in the context of retirement plans that hold company stock as an asset.

“Medicaid Governance in the Wake of National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius: Finding Federalism’s Middle Pathway, from Administrative Law to State Compacts” by John D. Blum of Loyola University Chicago College of Law and Gayland O. Hethcoat II of Barnes & Thornburg LLP focuses on the various state legal challenges to the dramatic expansion of Medicaid coverage by the Affordable Care Act.

“How the Supreme Court and the Department of Labor May Dispel Myths About ERISA’s Family Law Provisions and Protect the Benefit Entitlements that Arise Thereunder” by attorney Albert Feuer of the Law Offices of Albert Feuer presents a detailed analysis of the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence regarding the interaction between state family law and ERISA, with a focus on ERISA preemption, domestic relations orders, and entitlement to plan distributions.

“The Supreme Court Fills a Gaping Hole: CIGNA Corp. v. Amara Clarifies the Scope of Equitable Relief Under ERISA” by Susan Harthill of Florida Coastal Law School emphasizes how lower courts are reacting to Amara and applying the language of the decision in awarding appropriate equitable relief under section 502(a)(3) of ERISA.

“Summary Plan Descriptions After Amara” by David Pratt of Albany Law School focuses on the future implications of Amara for plan sponsors, administrators, participants, and beneficiaries regarding the summary plan description required by ERISA.

“Medicaid Provider Claims: Standing, Assignments, and ERISA Preemption” by Kevin Wiggins of Thorp, Reed & Armstrong LLP describes a paradox that arises due to the combination of ERISA’s broad preemption of state law and the Supreme Court’s narrow interpretation of ERISA remedies.

The John Marshall Law Review is available through subscription. Visit lawreview.jmls.edu for additional information.

Comments are closed.