STEERING COMMITTEE - The Steering Committee is the governing body of the conference.  They meet by phone several times a year and in person periodically.  If you ever have any comments or questions, feel free to contact any member at any time.  They will be happy to help.

COMMUNICATIONS COMMITTEE - While this committee oversees the content of the newsletter, they also do brief write-ups on various members of the leadership. 

This month's newsletter catches up with Andrea Bapst, the incoming 2011 chair of the SEBC Communications Committee.  Andrea has been on SEBC committees for the last two years, having served on the program committee in 2009 and 2010.

Andrea works in human resources for the US operations of Catlin Group Limited, the large property and casualty insurance underwriter primarily based in the UK.  She's been with Catlin for four years, having moved from Buffalo to Atlanta to take her current position.  Andrea functions primarily as a human resources generalist, balancing her doses of benefit issues with doses of training issues and labor/employment issues.  Andrea also serves on her company's 401(k) administrative committee.  Andrea's favorite aspect of working with benefit issues is seeing how benefits can really help an employee through personal situations and in times of crisis.  Like insurance, no one really thinks about benefits until you need them.

Andrea enjoys not having lake effect snow here in Atlanta, and participates in many outdoor activities, including tennis (ALTA doubles, USTA singles), running, and cycling.  A highlight for Andrea in 2010 was participating in a seven-day, 540 mile bike ride from San Francisco to Los Angeles as part of a fundraising effort for AIDS Lifecycle.  She had strong legs after the ride!  Andrea also ran a half marathon in 2010 on Atlanta's Silver Comet Trail.  For 2011, Andrea is contemplating duathlons.

Andrea stays involved with the SEBC to keep up with networking, and to keep up with a rapidly changing benefits landscape.  Andrea particularly values SEBC's educational events and thinks the knowledge gained through SEBC allows her to be a more effective and discerning provider of benefit services at Catlin.

Andrea lives in the Atlanta suburb of Mabelton, where she shares space with one black cat, aged two.

FUNDRAISING COMMITTEE - This committee is responsible for securing sponsorships for the SEBC.  The monies raised by this committee is the lifeblood of the organization.  Sponsorships are available for whatever budget you might have - check out the opportunities here

MEMBERSHIP COMMITTEE - Along with all members, this committee is responsible for new members.  This month we would like to welcome Cynthia Wright from Rheem Manufacturing in Atlanta and Jenny Shealy from Nelson Mullins in Myrtle Beach, SC.
 

This information is provided by Bard Brockman at Bryan Cave LLP as general information only.  You should consult with your legal counsel regarding specific application to you or your plan.

Supreme Court Issues Guidance on Recovery of Attorney's Fees Under ERISA.

                The Supreme Court issued its first substantive opinion regarding the award of attorney's fees under ERISA in Hardt v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., 130 S. Ct. 2149 (2010).   At issue in the case was whether ERISA § 502(g)(1) provides a district court discretion to award reasonable attorney's fees only to a prevailing party.

                The plaintiff in that case, Ms. Hardt, applied for long-term disability benefits under her employer's plan after experiencing medical problems.  After exhausting her administrative remedies, Hardt sued Reliance, the disability insurance carrier, under ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B) for wrongful denial of benefits.  The district court denied Reliance's summary judgment motion, finding that because Reliance had acted on incomplete medical information, its benefits denial was not based on substantial evidence.  The district court likewise denied Hardt's summary judgment motion, but it stated that there was "compelling evidence" in the record that Hardt was totally disabled, and that it was inclined to rule in her favor.  The district court remanded the matter to Reliance and gave it 30 days to consider all of the evidence and to act on Hardt's application, or else the district court would enter judgment in Hardt's favor.  Reliance did as instructed and awarded Hardt the disability benefits.  Hardt then filed a motion in the district court for an award of attorney's fees under ERISA § 502(g)(1).  The district court determined that Hardt was the "prevailing party" in the proceeding, and it granted her motion for attorney's fees.  On appeal, the Fourth Circuit reversed, holding that Hardt had failed to qualify as a "prevailing party" because she did not obtain an "enforceable judgment on the merits" or a "court-ordered consent decree."  The Supreme Court granted certiorari review to resolve a conflict among the circuits on whether a fee claimant must be a "prevailing party" to be awarded attorney's fees under ERISA § 502(g)(1).

                The Hardt Court employed basic statutory construction principles to quickly resolve the issue of whether a fee claimant under § 502(g)(1) must be a prevailing party.  First, it noted that § 502(g)(1) does not purport to limit the availability of attorney's fees to prevailing parties; in fact, the text of that section permits the district court discretion to award fees to either party.  Next, it contrasted § 502(g)(1) with other fee-shifting sections of ERISA - § 502(g)(2) and § 515 - which require a judgment on the merits before fees can be awarded.  The contrast between these sections makes it clear, the Court noted, that Congress did not intend for fee awards under § 502(g)(1) to be limited to prevailing parties.  130 S. Ct. at 2156.

                The Court next addressed the circumstances under which a district court may award attorney's fees under § 502(g)(1).  Here, the Court relied heavily on its prior decision in Ruckelshaus v. Sierra Club, 463 U.S. 680 (1983), in which it interpreted a similar discretionary fee-shifting provision in the Clean Air Act to require a fee claimant to achieve "some degree of success on the merits."  The Court explained that this standard is not met by a "trivial success on the merits" or a "purely procedural victory," but it is satisfied if the district court can "fairly call the outcome of the litigation some success on the merits" without a lengthy inquiry into whether the success was substantial or whether it occurred on a central issue.  Id. at 2158, citing Ruckelshaus, 463 U.S. at 688.  Applying this standard to the facts before it, the Court ruled that Hardt had achieved "some success on the merits" because the district court had remanded the matter to Reliance with a strong suggestion that Hardt was entitled to the disability benefits.[1]  Importantly, the Hardt Court expressly reserved the issue of whether a remand to a plan administrator, without more, constitutes "some success on the merits" sufficient to make a claimant eligible for an award of attorney's fees under ERISA § 502(g)(1).  Id. at 2159.