This page provides information about In re
J.P.Morgan Chase Cash Balance Litigation, No. 06-cv-0732 (DLC)
(the “Cash Balance Action”); which is pending
settlement before the Honorable Denise Cote in the United States
Southern District of New York.
The Cash Balance Action challenges the legality of
the JPMorgan Chase Retirement Plan (the
“Plan”), as well as the predecessor cash balance plans offered
by:
- The Chase Manhattan Bank; and
- Morgan Guaranty Trust Company of New York.
The Cash Balance Action
On January 31, 2006, Darrin Wilson filed the first Class
Action Complaint against Defendants, the JPMorgan Chase
Retirement Plan and the JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA, and JPMorgan
Chase & Co., Inc. A copy of the Wilson Complaint is available by
clicking here.
On April 5, 2006, the Court consolidated all actions against
the Plan asserting claims related to the Plan’s use of a cash
balance formula. A copy of the Order consolidating cases is
available by
clicking here.
On June 23, 2006, Plaintiffs in the consolidated actions
filed a corrected Consolidated Class Action Complaint (the
“Consolidated Complaint”), asserting multiple claims for relief
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”). The
Consolidated Complaint asserted that the Plan discriminates on
the basis of age in violation of ERISA (the “Age Claim”), that
Defendants’ notices, SPDs and/or summaries of material
modification failed to disclose that the 1989 Chase Plan and
subsequent Plan amendments caused a significant reduction in
participants’ rate of future benefit accrual (the “Notice
Claims”), as well as claims alleging Plan participants suffered
backloading and forfeiture of benefits. A copy of the
Consolidated Complaint is available by
clicking here.
On June 26, 2006, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss all
remaining counts of the Consolidated Complaint for failure to
state a claim and failure to plead with particularity. A copy of
the Motion to Dismiss is available by
clicking here.
On August 11, 2006, Plaintiffs moved for certification of a
class consisting of “all plan participants, whether active,
inactive or retired, their beneficiaries and estates, whose
accrued benefits are based in whole or in part on the Plan’s
cash balance formulas, from January 1, 1989 to present.” A copy
of the Motion for Class Certification is available by
clicking here.
On October 30, 2006, the Court issued an Opinion and Order
granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss the backloading and
forfeiture claims in the Consolidated Complaint but denying the
motion to dismiss the age discrimination claim and the notice
claims. A copy of the Order is available by
clicking here.
On May 30, 2007, the Court certified a Class with respect to
a subset of Plaintiffs’ claims. The Court certified a Class for
the Age Claim with respect to the Plan in effect between January
1, 1989 and January 31, 2006. The Court also certified a Class
for the Notice Claims for Plan amendments effective on or after
January 1, 2002. A copy of the Class Certification Order is
available by
clicking here.
On March 17, 2008, the Court stayed the JPMC Action pending
the decision of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals regarding
age discrimination claims against a cash balance pension plan in
the matter Hirt v. The Equitable Retirement Plan. The Second
Circuit issued its opinion in that matter, Hirt v. The Equitable
Retirement Plan, 533 F.3d 102 (2d Cir. 2008), finding that cash
balance plans did not violate ERISA’s prohibitions against
age-based reductions in the rate of benefit accrual. A copy of
the Second Circuit decision in Hirt is available by
clicking here.
On December 4, 2008, the Court issued an Opinion and Order
granting the dismissal with prejudice of the Age Claim in the
Cash Balance Action. A copy of the Order is available by
clicking here.
In January 2009, following the completion of fact and expert
discovery, the Cash Balance Plaintiffs decided to voluntarily
dismiss the Certified Notice Claims with prejudice, after
concluding that even if they succeeded at trial on the Certified
Notice Claims there would be no meaningful remedy to Class
Members. Notice of the voluntary dismissal was provided to Class
Members, and the Court held a hearing in July 2009 to consider
Class Members’ objections. A copy of the Notice is available by
clicking here.
On July 21, 2009, Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to
file a proposed amended class action complaint (the “Proposed
Complaint”). The Proposed Complaint asserts notice and fiduciary
breach claims relating to (1) the 1989 Chase Plan and (2) the
1997 Chase Plan, to the extent it affected former employees of
Manufacturers Hanover Trust Company. In the motion, the
Plaintiffs reserved the right to seek class certification and/or
Plan-wide relief with respect to the claims asserted in the
Proposed Complaint. A copy of the Proposed Complaint is
available by
clicking here.
On July 30, 2009, the Court held a fairness hearing on the
voluntary dismissal during which it considered objections to the
voluntary settlement submitted by members of the certified
Class.
On October 19, 2009, the Honorable Denise Cote issued a
final order granting the requested voluntary dismissal. A copy
of the Order granting final approval is available by
clicking here.
On October 27, 2009, the Honorable Denise Cote stayed the
proceedings in both the In re J.P.Morgan Chase Cash Balance
Litigation and Frank Bilello v. JPMorgan Chase Retirement Plan,
et al. after all parties agreed in principle to settle all
remaining claims in those actions. A copy of the Endorsed Letter
staying the proceedings is available by
clicking here.On March 3, 2010, the Court issued an
Order granting preliminary approval of the Settlement,
preliminarily certifying a Class for settlement purposes, and
approving the Notice to the Class. A copy of the Order is
available by
clicking here.
On July 15, 2010, the Court entered an Order and Final Judgment
granting final approval of the settlement and awarding out-of-pocket
costs to some of the class representatives. A copy of the Order is
available by
clicking here.
If you have any questions about the Notice, these actions,
or the pending voluntary dismissal with prejudice of the
certified class claims, please contact the attorney for
Plaintiffs who is listed on the notice. Contact information for
that attorney is also available by
clicking here. |
|