Neil V. Shah
Associate
Neil V. Shah is an associate in the Labor & Employment Law Department and a member of the Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Group, where he focuses on ERISA litigation.
Neil represents plan sponsors, trustees, and other fiduciaries in ERISA class actions for breach of fiduciary duty arising out of investment losses and prohibited transactions, as well as Department of Labor and other governmental and internal investigations. Neil also counsels both employers and multiemployer funds regarding the assessment and collection of delinquent contributions and withdrawal liability.
Prior to joining Proskauer, Neil was an associate at a large regional firm, where he litigated individual and class actions involving challenges to insurer claims adjudication procedures under ERISA, fraud recoveries against healthcare providers, and claims for benefits.
Neil has authored several articles, including those published in the New Jersey Law Journal and Bloomberg National Affairs. He is also a frequent contributor to Proskauer’s Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Blog.
Subscribe to all posts by Neil V. Shah
In Holland v. Murray, No. 21-cv-567, 2023 WL 2645708 (D.D.C. Mar. 27, 2023), the court held that financial support provided by Congress to a multiemployer pension plan under the Bipartisan American Miners Act (“BAMA”) did not divest the plan of Article III standing to pursue the withdrawal liability it was owed.… Continue Reading
In Central States v. Wingra, No. 21-cv-3684, 2023 WL 199360 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 17, 2023), the district court held that an employer expelled from a multiemployer pension plan may not owe withdrawal liability because the permanent cessation of the employer’s obligation to contribute was not voluntary. While the court subsequently limited the decision as being … Continue Reading
In Kanefsky v. Ford Motor Co. Gen. Ret. Plan, No. 22-cv-2259, 10548 U.S. Dist. 2023 WL 186800 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 13, 2023), the court granted a motion to dismiss a pension plan participant’s claim that the plan was equitably estopped from recouping overpaid plan benefits. Upon termination of his employment, the participant requested and received … Continue Reading
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals recently issued a withdrawal liability decision of which both multiemployer pension plans and their contributing employers should be aware. Specifically, in National Retirement Fund v. Metz Culinary Management, Inc., No. 17-1211, 2020 WL 20524 (Jan. 2, 2020), the Second Circuit held that the interest rate used to calculate an … Continue Reading
The Seventh Circuit held that a multiemployer pension fund’s withdrawal liability claim was barred by the six-year statute of limitations applicable to claims under the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act (MPPAA). After the employer failed to make several quarterly withdrawal liability payments, the fund declared the employer to be in default, accelerated its withdrawal liability, … Continue Reading
The Fifth Circuit concluded that a plan’s three-year contractual limitations period began to accrue when a beneficiary received a letter in 2008 that prominently displayed on the first page the monthly earnings used to calculate his long term disability benefits. The Court held that the claim was time-barred because the beneficiary failed to bring his … Continue Reading
A New York federal district court concluded that a defined benefit plan participant lacked standing to seek relief on behalf of plans other than the one in which he was a participant. In this case, plaintiff claimed that defendants breached ERISA fiduciary duties and engaged in prohibited transactions by charging undisclosed markups for securities trades. … Continue Reading
The Tenth Circuit upheld a claims administrator’s decision denying a claim for residential mental health treatment as not medically necessary. In so holding, the Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the claims administrator’s refusal to produce data on its historical denial rates for mental health treatment warranted a de novo review because that information was not … Continue Reading
The Second Circuit held that plaintiffs’ allegations that the defendant suffered from a “categorical potential conflict of interest”—because it both funded the plan and was the claim’s decision-maker—did not affect the application of the arbitrary and capricious standard of review in the absence of a showing by the plaintiffs that the conflict actually affected the … Continue Reading
A federal district court in Illinois held that participants in a multiemployer pension plan failed to plausibly allege that plan fiduciaries retaliated against them in violation of ERISA § 510 by refusing to consider their employer’s offer to settle its withdrawal liability to the plan. In lieu of paying withdrawal liability, the employer offered to create … Continue Reading
The Ninth Circuit unanimously concluded that a trustee and lawyer for certain multiemployer funds violated ERISA § 510 by unlawfully firing a whistleblower in the funds’ collections department, but, in a split decision, concluded that the retaliation did not amount to a breach of fiduciary duty. The whistleblower was cooperating with a DOL criminal investigation of … Continue Reading
The Ninth Circuit held that employer contributions due to a Taft Hartley fund are not plan assets until they are actually paid to the fund, irrespective of whether the plan document defines plan assets to include unpaid employer contributions. As a result, a fund could not hold a contributing employer’s owner and treasurer personally liable … Continue Reading
For a multiemployer pension fund to hold an asset purchaser liable for withdrawal liability as a successor-in-interest, the fund must establish that the purchaser was (i) on notice of the seller’s withdrawal liability, and (ii) the purchaser “substantially continued” the seller’s operations. In Ind. Elec. Workers Pension Benefit Fund v. ManWeb Servs., No. 16-cv-2840, 2018 WL … Continue Reading
A Third Circuit decision, Sikora v. UPMC, 876 F.3d 110 (3d Cir. 2017), deepens a circuit split over whether a participant’s bargaining power is relevant to determining whether a plan qualifies for “top hat” status under ERISA. Plans that qualify for “top hat” status are exempt from ERISA’s eligibility, vesting, funding, and fiduciary requirements. To … Continue Reading
A district court in Rhode Island dismissed claims by participants in the CVS Employee Stock Ownership Plan that plan fiduciaries imprudently invested plan assets in the plan’s stable value fund. Plaintiffs argued that the stable value fund had an excessive concentration of investments with ultra-short durations and excessive liquidity, both of which caused the fund … Continue Reading
The Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of ERISA stock drop claims by participants in the Cliffs Natural Resources’ 401(k) Plan. The participants alleged fiduciary breach claims based on public and non-public information arising out of the collapse in iron ore prices that caused the company’s stock price to decline 95%. With respect to the public information claim, … Continue Reading
In Vangas v. Montefiore Medical Center, 2016 WL 2909354 (2d Cir. May 19, 2016), the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s holding that an employer is not liable for failing to provide a COBRA notice to a terminated employee under ERISA § 502(c) where the employer followed reasonable procedures to ensure that notices were properly … Continue Reading
A federal district court in California held that the ILWU-PMA Welfare Benefit Plan’s anti-assignment provision barred Brand Tarzana Surgical Institute’s claim for benefits and thus dismissed the Institute’s claim for benefits. In so holding, the court rejected the Institute’s argument that the plan waived the right to assert the anti-assignment provision as a defense by … Continue Reading
The R.J. Reynolds defendants have again prevailed against allegations that they breached their fiduciary duties by divesting the RJR 401(k) plan of funds invested in Nabisco stock. Following remand by the Fourth Circuit, the district court held that a hypothetical fiduciary “would” have divested the plan of the Nabisco investments in the same time and … Continue Reading
Continuing a trend in other Circuits, the Eighth Circuit held that a service provider that was contracted to provide the 401(k) plan’s investment options does not act as an ERISA fiduciary when, consistent with the terms of a contract it negotiated at arms’ length, it passes through operating expenses to participants. The Court also rejected the plan’s … Continue Reading
A federal district court in Minnesota dismissed a plan participant’s allegations that plan fiduciaries mismanaged a defined benefit plan — and thus caused it to be underfunded — because the plan’s financial condition improved during the course of the litigation. As reported here, the court previously held that these allegations were sufficient to establish that … Continue Reading
The court in Tussey v. ABB Inc., No. 2:06-cv-04305 (W.D. Mo. Dec. 9, 2015), a long-running suit alleging that ABB failed to monitor recordkeeping fees and improperly mapped participants’ investments (previously reported on here), awarded class counsel $11.7 million in attorneys’ fees and affirmed its earlier award of $2.28 million in costs and class representative … Continue Reading
On November 18, 2015, the Department of Labor (the “Department”) published a notice of Proposed Rulemaking at 80 Fed. Reg. 222 (the “Proposed Rule”) to amend ERISA’s claims procedures (29 C.F.R. 2560.503-1) as they apply to claims for disability benefits. One of the purposes of the Proposed Rule is to make ERISA’s claims procedures for … Continue Reading
The Sixth Circuit rejected a participant’s argument that the plan’s subrogation provision was not enforceable because it was only in the plan’s summary plan description, and not in the trust agreement that the participant argued was the operative plan document. The Court determined that the subrogation provision was contained within a document that served as … Continue Reading
District Court Denies Employer’s “Injury-In-Fact” Challenge to Withdrawal Liability
By Neil V. Shah and Daniel Wesson on Posted in Withdrawal Liability
District Court Holds Employer “Expelled” From Plan May Not Have Effected a “Withdrawal”
By Neil V. Shah and Daniel Wesson on Posted in Withdrawal Liability
District Court Rejects Participant’s Attempt to Stop Plan From Recouping Overpayments
By Neil V. Shah and Jesse T. Foley on Posted in Defined Benefit Pension Plans, Equitable Estoppel
Second Circuit Prohibits Retroactive Changes to Withdrawal Liability Interest Rate Assumptions
By Anthony Cacace, Justin Alex and Neil V. Shah on Posted in Withdrawal Liability
Seventh Circuit Holds Withdrawal Liability Cannot Be “Decelerated”
By Neil V. Shah on Posted in Withdrawal Liability
Prominently Displayed, Fundamental Discrepancy In Benefits Triggered Contractual Limitations Period
By Neil V. Shah on Posted in Statute of Limitations
SDNY Rejects Class Standing and Fiduciary Breach Claims In Connection With Alleged Double-Charging Scheme
By Neil V. Shah on Posted in Standing
Tenth Circuit Upholds Denial of Residential Mental Health Treatment
By Neil V. Shah on Posted in Mental Health Parity
Categorical Conflict of Interest Does Not Alter Standard of Review of Benefit Denials
By Neil V. Shah on Posted in Benefit Claims
Participants’ ERISA Retaliation Claim Dismissed
By Neil V. Shah on Posted in ERISA § 510
ERISA Implications for Firing A Whistleblower
By Neil V. Shah on Posted in ERISA § 510
Ninth Circuit Deepens Circuit Split Over Whether Delinquent Contributions Are Plan Assets
By Neil V. Shah on Posted in Delinquent Contributions
Seventh Circuit Rejects “Big Buyer” Defense to Successor Liability
By Anthony Cacace and Neil V. Shah on Posted in Withdrawal Liability
Third Circuit Deepens Circuit Split Over Test for “Top Hat” Status Under ERISA
By Neil V. Shah on Posted in Top Hat Plans
District Court Dismisses Allegations That Stable Value Fund is Too Conservative
By Neil V. Shah on Posted in Defined Contribution Plan Investment Litigation
Sixth Circuit Dismisses ERISA Stock Drop Action Against Cliffs Natural Resources
By Neil V. Shah on Posted in Employer Stock Fund Litigation
Second Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Claim Arising from Incorrectly Addressed COBRA Notice
By Neil V. Shah on Posted in COBRA
Anti-Assignment Provision Bars Surgery Center’s $3.3 Million ERISA Benefits Claims
By Neil V. Shah on Posted in Standing
On Remand, District Court Rules for the Fiduciaries in Tatum v. R.J. Reynolds
By Neil V. Shah on Posted in Employer Stock Fund Litigation, Loss Causation
Eighth Circuit Holds Service Provider Is Not A Plan Fiduciary In Excessive Fee Case
By Neil V. Shah on Posted in Fiduciary
Defined Benefit Plan Participant’s Action Mooted by ERISA Plan’s Improved Financial Condition
By Neil V. Shah on Posted in Standing
Court Awards $11.7M in Attorneys’ Fees In Fund Mapping Case
By Neil V. Shah on Posted in Attorneys' Fees
DOL Proposes to Bring ERISA Disability Denials in Line with the Affordable Care Act
By Neil V. Shah on Posted in Client Alert, Disability Benefit Claims
Sixth Circuit Enforces Subrogation Clause
By Neil V. Shah on Posted in Subrogation/Reimbursement
