In plaintiffs' action against their former employer for breach of fiduciary duty involving elimination of a preexisting retiree medical benefits plan, district court's judgment is affirmed where: 1) district court correctly concluded that twelve of the fourteen plaintiffs could prevail on their breach of fiduciary claims as the facts demonstrate that defendant breached the duty by both misrepresenting and inadequately disclosing material information regarding retiree medical benefits on which the twelve plaintiffs relied to their detriment; 2) remedies ordered by the district court were carefully prescribed and are consistent with both the statutory language of ERISA and applicable case law; 3) district court did not err in refusing to order retrospective monetary relief as it is not an appropriate equitable remedy under ERISA; and 4) district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorneys' fees.
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C.No. 03-cv-03924)
District Judge: Honorable Bruce W. Kauffman
Argued April 22, 2009
Opinion Filed September 2, 2009
Opinion by Circuit Judge Fisher
Counsel for Appellant: Joseph J. Costello, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Joseph A. Teklits
Counsel for Appellee: Joseph A. Golden, Pitt, McGehee, Palmer, Rivers & Golden, Charles Gottlieb, Gottlieb & Goren, Scott M. Lempert, Alan M. Sandals, Clayton H. Thomas, Jr., Clayton H. Thomas & Associates