Based on the facts before it, the Supreme Court in
American Pipe limited the tolling of absent class member claims in at least two ways: (1) to cases in which class certification had been denied and (2) to cases in which the denial of class certification was
not for lack of standing by the named plaintiff.
American Pipe, 414 U.S. at 552–53. While
American Pipe noted these limitations, courts have struggled with both restrictions because they can appear to lead to inequitable results and be inconsistent with the reasoning behind
American Pipe. This has led some courts to allow tolling in both exceptions: cases without denial of class certification and case in which dismissal was based on the named plaintiff’s lack of standing. This has created conflict among lower courts.
Tuesday, March 16, 2021
For many years there has been concern that when pension plans collapse, it may in part be attributable to the failure of employer plan sponsors to conduct the selection and monitoring of actuarial assumptions in a prudent, objective manner. This is because the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) only requires the use of “reasonable” assumptions and “actuarial equivalents”; and because these terms are not defined in the statute, they could mean different things to different people, particularly to different actuaries.
Most recently, there have been challenges to the use of pension plan mortality assumptions and, in particular, claims alleging that the use of older mortality tables in connection with the calculation of joint and survivor benefits violates ERISA’s anti-cutback rule. These cases generally are settled, since winning a motion to dismiss is difficult when alleged violations depend on the meaning of the term �