18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

314 Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition participants. Id . at *4. Plaintiff further alleged that Defendants failed to bargain diligently for full value in the sale to ICV Partners. Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification pursuant to Rule 23, which the Court granted. The proposed class consisted of all ESOP participants and beneficiaries during the time of the sale. The Court held that the class was sufficiently numerous at 464 individuals. The Court also found that Plaintiff asserted several questions common to all class members including whether Defendants breached their fiduciary duties and whether those breaches affected the ESOP. The Court further determined that Plaintiff’s claims were typical to those of the class members, as all the class members were harmed by Defendants’ failure to obtain the best possible price for the sale of the company, all class members would share in the benefit of a recovery, and all class members suffered the same breach of fiduciary duty. Defendant argued that Plaintiff was not an adequate class member, as he was involved in the Segerdahl’s sale and therefore had a conflict of interest. The Court reasoned that Defendants’ argument was mere speculation and that Defendants failed to put forth enough evidence to allow the Court to conclude that Plaintiff either was involved in or agreed with the alleged misconduct. Finally, the Court concluded that class certification was proper under Rule 23(b)(1), because since any potential recovery would go to the Plan, and all plan members had a shared stake in the outcome. Id. For these reasons, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for class certification. (viii) Eighth Circuit Davis, et al. v. Stadion Money Management, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 184619 (D. Neb. Sept. 27, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of participants in retirement funds, file a class action alleging that Defendant, an investment advisor, breached its fiduciary duties under the ERISA by directing participant accounts into Stadion, an United affiliated investment option, despite the availability of superior investment options that would have better met the needs of participants. Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification pursuant to Rule 23, and the Court denied the motion. Plaintiffs proposed class consisted of all retirement plan participants enrolled in Defendant’s managed account services within United administered ERISA-governed retirement plans. Plaintiffs offered expert testimony that there was a methodology for calculating damages on a class-wide basis that would not turn on individualized assessments. Defendant argued that Plaintiffs failed to meet the requirements of Rules 23(a), 23(b)(1), or 23(b)(3). The Court agreed that Plaintiffs failed to meet the commonality or typicality requirements of Rule 23(a) and the predominance and superiority requirements under Rule 23(b)(3). The Court reasoned that given the individual inquiries necessary to determine whether each individual plan or plan participant actually sustained an economic loss, common questions did not predominate. Id . at *21-22. The Court also determined that Plaintiffs failed to identify alternative investment benchmarks, and analyzing all of the available options would entail examination of thousands of plans and differing investment lineups. The Court explained that the effect of any alleged breach on each class member would require individualized analysis. Further, the Court opined that the question of whether a certain rate of return was reasonable would not generate a common answer throughout the proposed class due to different plans, costs, fees, and other facts. Therefore, the Court also held that certification under Rule 23(b)(1) was inappropriate. The Court held that Plaintiffs failed to adduce any evidence as to whether a prudent fiduciary in like circumstances would have prospectively selected an alternative fund or would have had a reason to do so. Id . at *25. For these reasons, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. J.P., et al. v. BCBSM, Inc., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7462 (D. Minn. Jan. 14, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of participants in Defendant’s health insurance plan, filed a class action alleging that Defendant improperly reprocessed a claim for heath treatment when the insurer determined that it had overpaid on the claim without informing them that claims would be subject to recoupment in violation of the ERISA. Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification pursuant to Rule 23, which the Court denied. It held that Plaintiffs failed to establish that the met the commonality, typicality, and adequacy requirements. Plaintiffs sought to certify a class consisting of 221 individuals enrolled in 84 health plans for whom Defendants originally made payments on claims, but then sought to recover alleged overpayments. Plaintiffs asserted that they were subject to summary plan documents (“SPD”) governing whether Defendants had the authority to off-set overpayments against future family members’ claims containing similar wrap agreements, making their claims susceptible to common proof. The Court reasoned that the question of whether Defendant was entitled to an off-set was answered by the SPDs and other plan documents, and the putative class members belonged to 84 different ERISA plans, an unknown number of which had different controlling plan documents with different plan language that would need to be analyzed to determine the outcome of each class member’s claims . Id . at *17. The Court determined that since