Despite the strong federal policy in favor of arbitration, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio recently denied a motion to compel arbitration concerning an alleged injury to a defined contribution retirement plan and its participants. In this case, two plaintiffs brought an action pursuant to § 409 and § 502(a)(2) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) individually and on behalf of other similarly situated plan participants against Cintas Corporation for breaching its fiduciary duties of loyalty and prudence by mismanaging and failing to investigate and select better cost options for the plan. In response to this lawsuit, Cintas filed a motion to compel arbitration based on the employment agreements signed by the two plaintiffs.
Read the complete story here.
In this episode of the Arbitration Conversation Amy interviews Prof. Andrea Bjorklund, Full Professor and the L. Yves Fortier Chair in International Arbitration and International Commercial Law at McGill University...
By Andrea Bjorklund, Amy SchmitzIn this episode of the Arbitration Conversation, Amy interviews Janet Martinez, Director, Gould Negotiation and Mediation Program; Director, Gould Alternative Dispute Resolution Research Initiative at Stanford Law School about dispute...
By Janet Martinez, Amy SchmitzJust as we went to press came word that, based on statutory construction, the Supreme Court has decided Badgerow v. Walters, No. 20-1143, ruling 8-1 that the “look through” doctrine does...
By George Friedman
With the purchase of a Featured Membership, you will be shown on the front page of Arbitrate.com to web site visitors from your city and region (“state” if you are in the USA). You may appear in more than one city/region by purchasing additional locations.