Darren E. Nadel

Oct 9, 2023 | mondaq.com | Darren E. Nadel

The Fourth Circuit weighed in on the complex area of equitable relief under ERISA § 502(a)(3), holding that recovery under an unjust enrichment theory may provide claimants with an alternate path to monetary relief under the statute. The Fourth Circuit departed from the reasoning in CIGNA Corp v. Amara, a 2011 Supreme Court case, holding that plaintiffs seeking monetary relief on a personal, rather than proprietary basis cannot recover under § 502(a)(3).

Oct 6, 2023 | jdsupra.com | Darren E. Nadel |Billie Jo Risheim

The Fourth Circuit weighed in on the complex area of equitable relief under ERISA § 502(a)(3), holding that recovery under an unjust enrichment theory may provide claimants with an alternate path to monetary relief under the statute. The Fourth Circuit departed from the reasoning in CIGNA Corp v. Amara, a 2011 Supreme Court case, holding that plaintiffs seeking monetary relief on a personal, rather than proprietary basis cannot recover under § 502(a)(3).

Oct 5, 2023 | littler.com | Darren E. Nadel |Billie Jo Risheim

The Fourth Circuit weighed in on the complex area of equitable relief under ERISA § 502(a)(3), holding that recovery under an unjust enrichment theory may provide claimants with an alternate path to monetary relief under the statute. The Fourth Circuit departed from the reasoning in CIGNA Corp v. Amara, a 2011 Supreme Court case, holding that plaintiffs seeking monetary relief on a personal, rather than proprietary basis cannot recover under § 502(a)(3).

Jul 24, 2023 | today.westlaw.com | Monaliza Rainwater |Thomas Carroll |Darren E. Nadel

Enter to open, tab to navigate, enter to select

Jul 20, 2023 | mondaq.com | Monaliza Rainwater |Thomas Carroll |Darren E. Nadel

In a recent decision, the Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court's ruling that a former executive for a credit-card processing company did not breach his employment agreement when he poached company clients, because the company materially breached the employment agreement first. Accordingly, even though the restrictive covenant was otherwise enforceable, the employer could not recover damages caused by the former employee's solicitation.