|Date Of Involvement:||02/05/2010|
The question presented in this case was:
Whether a district court, after finding material omissions and misleading statements in summary descriptions in violation of ERISA's disclosure requirements and unrebutted likely harm to employees from the violations, cannot order relief unless the district judge conducts individual hearings (in this case involving as many as 27,000 plaintiffs) to determine how each employee "detrimentally relied" on the omissions and misleading statements.
On May 16, 2011, the Supreme Court ruled that the district court granted relief under an inapplicable provision of ERISA. However, the Court determined that a different ERISA provision authorized relief, and remanded the case.