Blog of law articles

You heard me, I'm talking ERISA.

ERISA!!

Fed law clerks, you know what I'm talking about. You got to admit it, you get a little excited when you see a complaint come in and it deals with that provocative statute on steroids.

In fact I'll go so far as to say that an ERISA case is nearly as exciting as a social security appeal -- minus all the sexiness and bodice-ripping drama.

I mean, where else can you find this kind of forceful, thrilling, even daring argument:

Plaintiffs’ ERISA claims (Counts 1 through 3) must be dismissed for their failure to exhaust their administrative remedies. Independently, the ERISA claims against Stiefel Laboratories, Inc. (hereinafter the “Company”) must be dismissed because the Company is not a fiduciary of the Employee Stock Bonus Plan (“ESBP”), and these Plaintiffs (none of whom “diversified” their ESBP account holdings) lack standing to assert Count 3, which is based upon an alleged prohibited transaction under ERISA in connection with the ESBP diversification opportunity in February 2009.

If that doesn't make you stand up and proclaim YES I AM A LAWYER DAMMIT! I don't know what does.

(BTW, that's Dandy Dave Coulson on the brief, and he actually does a good job with it and the 10b-5 claims as well).